Talk:Khmer Rouge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khmer Rouge article.

Archives:


Contents

[edit] Khmer Rouge vs. "Eastern Zone"

According to Kiernan and several other sources, a pro-Vietnamese faction of the Communist Party was in charge of "Eastern Zone" in Cambodia, and no genocide occurred there. When the Vietnamese moved in, it was in support of their Cambodian allies, who were at that time fighting a civil war against the Khmer Rouge. Should not this aspect be more thoroughly highlighted?

Also, the fact that Khmer Rouge was very racist against ethnic minorities is noted by Kiernan. This deserves mention. (Just a passer-by's remark)

I don't find that line of reasoning very convincing. The problem with it is that the facts of it are difficult to verify and the first people to popularize this idea were the Vietnamese themselves. Its a fact that the Vietnamese staffed their puppet government with ex-Khmer Rouge from the east (like Hun Sen), but I would consider all of them criminals. As far as a civil war within the Khmer Rouge, there isn't any documentation to support that. The east (and the Khmer Rouge in the east) were on the front lines of the war with Vietnam and the bloody raids into Vietnam. 152.163.100.200 02:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's true that senior historians that can speak Khmer like Kiernan and Vickery gave evidence that Cambodia under Pol Pot was not homogenous and that the eastern zone displayed notably different behaviour than zones under the strict control of the Black Khmers. They documented this prior to the Vietnamese takeover. As far as the issue of a civil war is concerned, it depends on how you define civil war. There is definite documentation of active dissent in the form of an uprising of the eastern zone against Pol Pot in 1978. Check the following link from the Cambodia Genocide Project: [1]BernardL 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Or to take a quote from Globalsecurity.org (hardly a left wing institution)..."Differences between the Eastern Zone revolutionaries and the other Khmer Rouge were readily apparent by 1975. While the uniforms of Pol Pot loyalists and their allies were black, the uniforms of the Eastern Zone were a distinctive green. In addition, cadre behavior toward the civilian population in the Eastern Zone was generally exemplary. It seems that some of the Eastern cadres were sympathetic to Sihanouk; refugee Molyda Szymusiak wrote that during the evacuation of Phnom Penh, a "Sihanouk Khmer" soldier advised her relatives (who were distantly related to the royal family) to accompany him to Prey Veng Province on Cambodia's southern border." Many of the green khmers were veterans of the Vietnam war who had been educated in some of the more humanistic branches of North Vietnam's army- Kiernan has written about this.[2]BernardL 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"A crucial intent in the Eastern Zone massacres of 1978 was to eliminate all Eastern Zone people, because they had “Vietnamese minds” (Ben Kiernan, “Wild Chickens, Farm Chickens and Cormorants: Kampuchea’s Eastern Zone Under Pol Pot,” in Chandler and Kiernan, eds., Revolution and Its Aftermath in Kampuchea: Eight Essays, Yale University, Southeast Asia Studies Monograph No. 25, 1983).[3] BernardL 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No documentation huh? Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you open your yap!..."But internal rivals came first. In May 1978, in concert with Mok's forces and Pol Pot's centre units, Pauk's northern troops began slaughtering the suspect eastern zone administration and population. In the largest mass murder in Cambodian history, they murdered more than 100,000 easterners in late 1978.[4] BernardL 23:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is disturbing

Actually I want to say 'disgusting.'
Quote:

The Khmer Rouge's defenders have justified such actions by claiming that the country was on the verge of mass starvation as a result of U.S. bombing campaigns (figures for deaths vary considerably between 50,000 and 500,000 Cambodians), and that it was impossible to transport sufficient food to feed an urban population of between 2 and 3 million people. According to the Khmer Rouge's supporters this required forcibly evacuating the cities to the countryside so that people could become self-sufficient. In fact the motive for the evacuations was ideologically reflected in the Maoist doctrine which the Khmer Rouge followed, which praised the rural peasants and detested urban city dwellers.

  1. The first part of this basically says: 'It's impossible to transport food to the people, so let's transport the people to the food'.
    • Yes it really makes sense that lacking the infrastructure to transport food, transporting people is plausible. No, not really.
      • Annoying sarcasm aside, transporting people is something you do once. Transporting food needs to be done repeatedly; thus there needs to be an infrastructure. Note that I in no way condone the actions of the Khmer Rouge. --Sunnan
  2. Then it goes on to say that urban people are not 'self-sufficient.'
    • Really? New Yorkers, people living in Los Angeles, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing are not self sufficient? You could have fooled me. Are the editors of this article trying to state something about division of labor here that they're not happy with? Is that really appropriate?
      • No, New Yorkers, people living in Los Angeles, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing are not self sufficient. There's considerable import of goods from the countryside and from other regions. I actually read the passage you where quoting ("ideologically reflected in the Maoist doctrine") as anti-Maoist. I guess people read things differently... --Sunnan
  3. The non-apologetic use of 'forcible removal of people.'
    • There needs to be something here that says very clear and loudly that massive deportation of people is against human rights, and that no social agenda can justify this kind of inhumane government action.
      • For most people in the free world, the words "forcibly evacuating" are plenty damning in and of themselves. More is not needed if the goal is NPOV. --Sunnan (btw, I just discovered this page and I mean no disrespect to Ruy Lopez, Adam Carr and the others who quarrel over this. I was just annoyed with Bjorn's weird definition of POV/NPOV.)
    • Does that mean the massive deportation of people from the countryside to the cities, due to the US Air Force dropping 500,000 tons of bombs on the Cambodian countryside, is "very clear and loudly...against human rights" as well? Ruy Lopez 04:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "Massive deportation"... There was no forcible "deportation" to the cities. And any impaired individual knows that the US air force went out of its way to follow the ROEs with regards to bombing Cambodia. CJK 20:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is disgusting and, that in my humble opinion, requires the creation of a unique kind of POV tag that clearly informes the reader of the twisted character of this horrible page. (Bjorn Tipling 06:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)).

In reply: There have been many months of argument and conflict over this article. If you have problems with it you need to say what they are rather than just use words like "disgusting" and "horrible." Adam 06:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you upgrade your browser? Do you not see a bulleted list? Do you not think those are reasons/examples? What did you think that is? A grocery list? (Bjorn Tipling 14:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

I no longer bother with people who think that vulgar sarcasm of that kind is a suitable means of debate. Adam 14:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see that this article is one of many in wikipedia that is permanently fastened to a state of unending despair, languishing in hopelessness, bound in steadfast chains by blindfolded editors who are themselves lost and do not know it. Any attempt to save it is fruitless. Not even an RFC can save this page. Nothing can, but at least you'll not be alone! There are many, many wikipedia pages that have been taken hostage by trolls who see criticism as a personal attack, agenda minded hobgoblins, and executive ogres who graduated from some obscure educational institution and have attributed themselves with omniscient authority to dictate what proper debate is, and what proper editing is. I shall leave this bucket of crabs dragging each other down trying to escape, unwatch the article, and hope that readers will see this page for what it is: another colossal failure of the wiki model. (Bjorn Tipling 15:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

I don't doubt that, given time and patience, the article can be written in a way that will be NPOV to all sides. I'm offended by your statements. You give me a headache. --Sunnan

I see no reason why this article shouldn't be just deleted and rewritten. That's all. - Atomsprengja 02:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] choeu stek arom

I've searched for this phrase on a popular search engine but it only turned up this wikipedia article. How come? What's the source of this phrase? --Sunnan

[edit] How long has this been going on again?

i don't think we can keep this article consistent in its NPOV form until Ruy's banned from editting it and possibly other Communist/Cold War/U.S. foreign policy-related articles as well. Dr. Trey 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know how to contact an admin? I suggest that all of us involved ask Ruy to stop on his talk page. I believe that if at least two of us do this, and this person continues to do this, we are on the path to getting him/her blocked. (Bjorn Tipling 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC))
Although on a personal level I think that my politics are different from Ruy's, I don't think that such extreme measures are in order. Wikipedia is a place for all people, if it weren't for the Ruy's this would be an extremely skewed encylopedia. What I haven't seen, and what I haven't been able to find, is the source for the statement that he is trying to insert into the article. Ruy, I'm sure you're reading this, could you please annotate that sentence (you know which one) so that I don't have to continue my search for your source material? Thanks. --Easter Monkey 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for all people, if it were, then there would be no admins, and there would be no block feature. Wikipedia is not a place for people who continually throw articles into edit wars, add lies, and those who exist on the fringe fanatical outskirts of ideology. It's not a place for people who are unwilling to stop reverting articles in the face of some amount of opposition. Wikipedia is meant to be informative, not inclusive, and it's not a soapbox from which people can shout out whatever they believe. Not all ideas are equal. (Bjorn Tipling 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC))
I have already annotated the reference before, but since you're asking me in all seriousness, instead of in a flip manner like CJK/TDC, I will cite my references again.
One is:
Intervention and Change in Cambodia: Towards Democracy? by Sorpong Peou p. 126
According to Samuel Thornton (an American who worked from May 1968 to May 1969 as an intelligence specialist at the US Navy Command in Saigon) the coup preparations began in late 1968.
According to Samuel Thornton, at least two briefings on the proposal [to assassinate Sihanouk] "were given to senior intelligence staff at the US Military HQ in Saigon" and "the high level government" in Washington gave "blank approval to take any and all measures" to overthrow Sihanouk.
This was cited back in Talk:Khmer_Rouge#US_involvement_in_1970_coup. Neither TDC nor CJK cares though - is a sock puppet really having an argument? CJK is a sock puppet. As soon as the account was created it immediately began an edit war with me on Vietnam War and other pages. Is it one of the users who has run afoul of me and has been banned - VeryVerily, TreyStone (known sock puppet user) --
listen kid, you need to make a coherent argument instead of bringing up irrelevant shit about other users. i haven't used a sock in about a year, so can the bullshit. Dr. Trey 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
etc.?  Who knows...
As far as Bjorn, the editing on this page has been going on over a year, he shows up today and within a few minutes is screaming about banning people and likewise, so I'm just tuning him out. I'm sure he knows next to nothing about the CPK, just like TDC and CJK. I'm much more well-read on Cambodia then Adam Carr, but at least he knows something about it, and may have even visitied there.
Ruy Lopez 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Adam Carr at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, January 2005
Enlarge
Adam Carr at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, January 2005
 Being well-read is all very well, but if the sole purpose of your reading is to reinforce your pre-existing ideological views, you might as well stay ignorant. I recommend that Lopez go to Cambodia and talk to some ordinary Cambodians, as I did, about what his precious CPK did to their families (worker and peasant families as well as bourgeois), and go to the Tuol Sleng museum and the stupa of skulls at Cheuk Eng (I nearly threw up), and he might then be able to put his reading to some use. Adam 08:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Since I only make $7.25 an hour at my job, I don't think I will be trekking to Cambodia anytime soon, like those workers/peasants, I don't have the luxury the bourgeois have to travel around like that, and will have to rely on mostly bourgeois sources, including a handful of bourgeois radicals.
Adam Carr says once again that the CPK is some organization I have a personal and "precious" view of. I recently learned in following an ongoing ArbCom case that referring to someones personal views in article debates is something that carries no weight in offical Wikipedia rules. But beyond that, I don't know why it's always assumed I have this view or that view, not that it is supposed to have any bearing according to Wikipedia rules anyhow. Ruy Lopez 03:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, since you haven't been to Cambodia, for whatever reason, you therefore lack firsthand knowledge of what the Cambodian people have to say about the KR regime. That may not be your fault, but it remains a fact. So you should make at least an attempt to acknowledge that some people know more than you do, or than your "radical" print sources, safe in their university studies, do. As Chairman Mao says, "No investigation, no right to speak." Adam 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You know you sound pretty reasonable in the talk pages, why do you feel the need to delete sections of content without explanation and why do you feel the need to revert content that others don't think is appropriate. You know you can put some of this information into the article, you just have to qualify it appropriately and not make it become misleading. (Bjorn Tipling 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC))
Because his "reasonable" persona is a facade for the fact that he is a dedicated communist, as is reflected in all his edits. Adam 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh right, Carr thinks I'm a member of the PLP or something. And with him speaking of "being there" to know things. Carr seems to have a view of the US that is "stuck in the sixties" - PL has been more-or-less defunct since June 21, 1969, when most of SDS marched out of the Chicago Coliseum because they were sick of having to deal with PLers. PLP doesn't even have an office any more, as it closed years ago, now the handful that remain have just a PO Box. Perhaps Carr thinks I'm a secret Illuminati member of the Freemasons, intent on overthrowing the Roman Catholic church as well. 共产党，像太阳，照到哪里哪里亮。哪里有了共产党，呼尔嗨哟，哪里人民得解放 Ruy Lopez 06:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You're making a straw man argument here. He never said you were part of any organization. He never said you were part of the PLP, and therefore, there's no need to imply he's off the mark by describing this organization and it's end in any way shape or form. It's totally irrelevant and does not discredit his argument. (Bjorn Tipling 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
If you had said "He did not say right here you were part of any organization...the PLP..." you would have been correct. But you did not say this, you said, "He never said you were part of any organization...the PLP..." This is incorrect, because he has said that. Have I mentioned here about the time I met a guy selling Challenge at a march? I forget... Ruy Lopez 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, all of the acrimonious debate aside, and maybe in my naivete I still believe in giving due time to all viewpoints (although of course there shouldn't be any viewpoints here on the wikipedia) but like I said, and I still maintain, wikipedia is for all people (even those with slanted viewpoints one way or the other. Because it is my unshakable opinion that we need all viewpoints, because don't you see? that's what makes this so great.) I do agree with you Bjorn, that there needs to be procedures in place for those who are disruptive, but differing points of view do not equate with disruption. Like I said, I have no doubt that if Ruy and I were to compare political affiliations we would never agree. So, on that note, let me ask some questions: Since I don't have access to his book, 1) Who is Sorpong Peou? 2) What kind of citation does Sorpong Peou give for the Samuel Thornton information? Was it an interview or something else? 3) Is the information provided by Thornton to Peou verifiable in other sources? 4) You mention that this is one of your sources, what are the others? Let me know and I promise that I at least will assume good faith and go from there. Thanks.
Oh, one other thing. I have tried to stay out of the active debate on this article until now, (you can check my contributions, yes I've only been contributing since August/September this year) so that I could see what the issues were. It seemed that now was a good a time as any to add my two cents. FYI, my credentials and knowledge of the KR only go so far as that Tuol Sleng is less then a five minute drive from my house. I admit that I have zero academic background in the history of Cambodia, only what I have read in the last 2.5 years that I've lived in Phnom Penh, and also, and I think most importantly, that I am interested in making sure that this article is as good and as accurate as it can be. --Easter Monkey 11:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't for people who dump blatantly biased, whitewashing crap into previously well-written articles. I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if Ruy was doing something like this on the Adolf Hitler page.
Fact is, the KR are best known for presiding over mass starvation and death from overwork as a result of their extreme agrarian policies. It doesn't matter whether someone thinks that's an unfair viewpoint, that's what they're known for, and to leave it outta the intro is ridiculous, as everyone else here realizes.
I'm sure Ruy has a harsh proletarian job working anyway at McD... er nevermind. idon'tjudge Dr. Trey 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter Monkey, Ruy Lopez can't provide another source of decent credibility (actually, the first one does not have credibility either) because he is a blind anti-American communist propagandist. That might sound a bit harsh, but its true, as any respected user knows. Instead of responding to my questions that I posted a long time ago, he ignores them and spreads his bullshit propaganda about me being a sockpuppet (which he knows is false). Anybody who thinks that Ruy Lopez has contributed to NPOV here is therefore kidding themselves.

Getting to the substance of the issue, I would like to add a few other criticisms to the "evidence" presented:

  1. Lopez calls Thornton a "naval intelligence officer", but on the article, acts like he's CIA.
  2. He also added to the article "CIA agents". Who is this second person?
  3. Thornton was reffering to a coup where Sihanouk would be assassinated. That did not happen, and he is still alive as I type this.
  4. Thornton left the navy intelligence in 1969, according to Lopez. Yet the coup was in 1970. So he would not know what went forward.

CJK 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

CJK's characterisation of Lopez is quite correct. Most other projects of this nature would have banned him years ago, but I understand the ultruistic motivations of those who have decided that such a thing is not allowed. So we will just have to go reverting his bullshit until either he or we die of old age. Adam 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got it, there is obviously a great deal of history, stepped on toes, etc. that I am not going to pretend to understand. My wife is all into yoga, I've tried it but that crap doesn't work for me, but the mantra stuff seems to calm me down sometimes...:) Suffice it say that if Ruy Lopez is indeed an "anti-American communist", so be it, I would respectfully disagree, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that he has every right to be one if he so chooses. Again, believe me, my own political leanings could not be more different, but our own personal politics should not be an issue in a factual account of what happened.
If Lopez was just an "anti-American communist" I would be OK, however he is more than that. He is an outright liar and a fraud, a liar because of his false accusations on a personal and historical level, a fraud because of his inability to answer the questions or cite decent sources. CJK 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no "disagreement" about this. Whether or not Lopez is personally a communist, he spends a lotta time on wik making sure nothing bad's said about Uncle Joe, Uncle Ho, Our Dear Leader...you name it Dr. Trey 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, my original questions about the Sorpong Peou piece still stand, but here is one other: Has the CIA or any other U.S. government organization actually admitted, whether explicitly or implicitly, through whatever means, declassified documents, etc. that they were involved in a) the Lon Nol coup, or b) an assasination attempt of Sihanouk. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that either a) and/or b) might indeed be true. I am an American and a patriot, but not a blind patriot either. Involvement in assasination attempts and inciting coups are something that the U.S. government has been involved with in the past, and it has been something that they have admitted to (see Church Committee) of course not without someone asking first. And by asking I mean that litigation and congressional hearings were involved. But the point is that it is a matter of historical record that the USG has indeed been involved in these things. But in order to include such statements in this particular article, we have a clear need to have iron-clad sources. My problem is with statements such as "almost all academics agree" that the U.S. was involved. Such statements are by definition POV and should not be included as sources. Yes, again, all academics might agree about what is in fact ultimately true, but inclusion on that basis alone is unacceptable. thanks. --Easter Monkey 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The US government has not provided any declassified documents whatsoever that they were involved in the coup, because they weren't. Check on this if you don't believe me. I don't believe Lopez will answer any of the questions here that will cast doubt on his agenda.
Of course, the real reason there was a coup was because of Sihanouk's toleration of the thousands of communist Vietnamese troops stationed in Cambodia which made Sihanouk look too soft on the communists. CJK 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)



Well you know I did just come onto the article one day recently while searching for information about Khmer Rouge and found this horrible page (I'm sorry to be so crude about it, I know now that you guys have worked hard on it for some time and I don't mean to take away from that - but the article is terrible as everyone I have shown it to has thought so too). I know I haven't been here as long as many of you have. I thought maybe it was taken hostage in the same way that the torture page had been a few months ago and so I just wanted to help, because I want Wikipedia to be a better thing. I was kind of coarse in my reply to Adam a few weeks ago, and I apologize because at the moment I was just fed up with the politics of it all.

Now I understand the reasons of why you don't want to block Ruy, but I don't think this will lead to a better page. I don't believe we're here to be considerate of other people's feelings, I think there is a greater objective, a credible Wikipedia.(Bjorn Tipling 03:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

The amusing thing about this is I have an ironclad US intelligence source, and I'm not even saying what he said is true, I'm just quoting him, but this is pulled out. Compare that to the completely unsourced fantasies of a "Khmer Rouge genocide" which are trying to be propped up here, an unsourced house of cards, sort of like Christian faith, that falls apart when probed slightly, making the defenders of the faith that much more viligant. Ruy Lopez 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna let your comment speak for itslef. CJK 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
well i'll grant Ruy that it wasn't a genocide -- genocide implies intent. what it was was a blind radical communist ideology (lot more blind than most Christians i know) that's implementation resulted in the death of one-fourth of the Cambodian population. Dr. Trey 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I normally revert Lopez's edits on sight, but if he has a source for his quote about US involvement in the coup then it should be included with the proper citation.
  • Lopez should note that the article doesn't accuse the KR of "genocide" (or it didn't the last time I looked, and I have removed the word at least twice). It accuses them of mass murder, which is one of the most exhaustively documented facts in modern history. Adam 02:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • if he has a source for his quote about US involvement in the coup then it should be included with the proper citation. - what? I posted the source months ago, and have just reposted it once again in this section. For the third time, the source is Samuel Thornton, an American who worked from May 1968 to May 1969 as an intelligence specialist at the US Navy Command in Saigon. I wrote this at the top of this section, as well as several sections ago. Ruy Lopez 02:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an actual citation or link is required. Adam 02:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What did I say, it is already on this page twice. Intervention and Change in Cambodia: Towards Democracy? by Sorpong Peou p. 126.
Easter Monkey, do you see how this goes on and on and on? I've spent hours trying to put this sentence in. Even after all of this, they're not going to let me put the sentence in. Meanwhile, when I try to remove unsourced fantasy like "In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread.", of course that never happens. By they I mean Adam Carr and the sock puppet peanut gallery. Ruy Lopez 03:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
ya think you gain credibility by lying about shit Ruy? Dr. Trey 05:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a peanut, I'm an almond. Ruy, let's try this, write the information that you want to include in the article here, and we'll discuss how to include in the article in a way that everyone, or at least most people agree to. (Bjorn Tipling 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
Trey, you are banned for a year from editing articles. Which one of us has no credibility? Ruy Lopez 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
i don't know, i don't see how that's relevant to constantly posting bullshit about your little imaginary "sockpuppet" brigade. separate users do actually oppose the crap you dump in this project, believeitornot Dr. Trey 07:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Found this on google with search string of "Samuel Thornton Cambodia"

Folks, found this. Seymour Hersh is a pulitzer prize winning journalist (for his work on reporting the My Lai Massacre...on a side note, there's one for you Ruy, an incident with American soldiers involved called a massacre...). Bjorn, I don't think your current edit will work, it's to weasly (Some critics have speculated is the very definition of weasel wording). Ruy, I haven't found the Sorpong Peou ref. yet in its entirety (Peou is a professor at the Sophia University in Tokyo, by the way, looked him up too), but from the Hersh book it looks like if we go with that one we would not have a reasonable expectation that we can put in exactly "CIA" and have it be truthful, yet. I will dig some more, but the wording that I could live with would read something like this: "Sources within the American intelligence community at the time have admitted to having made plans for a coup, and an assasination." Not those words exactly, but I'm just thinking of this very quickly. Please let me know. Thanks. --Easter Monkey 15:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, good work. Looks legit. I wasn't trying to be weasily, just trying to find an acceptable compromise. Creating an article for Ruy's source would also go a long way to making it more acceptable (as long as that article has acceptable sources ;P). As for your discovery - if there's a source for it I'm down with it, but I think there needs to be something there too that describes the unpopularity of the idea. (Bjorn Tipling 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Bjorn's wording is pretty accurate, but Samuel Thornton simply isn't notable enough to be mentioned, IMO. My previous questions regarding this source still stand, even though Lopez won't answer them. I mean, if this one guy is the primary source 35 years after the coup (as indicated by Lopez on Easter Monkey's talk page) I'm going to have a tough time taking any of this coup stuff seriously. CJK 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Thornton was a US intelligence officer in Indochina from 1968 until 1969. If he is not notable, I wonder who would be a "notable" source who would have information of this kind. Like many times before, you don't even have an argument here. Ruy Lopez 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
And of course, days after the coup, the US invaded Cambodia (unless you consider the invitation by one of the governments to make it a non-invasion - but then you'd have to modify the Afghanistan, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia articles). But I guess that's just a coincidence Ruy Lopez 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because he was an intelligence officer doesn't mean he knew anything about what was going on. Maybe he was assigned to do cartography or something else totally unrelated. If he was in Naval intelligence then more than likely he had no idea what the CIA was doing. Those are two different organizations and I doubt they collaborate much. Who knows if he's telling the truth. Maybe he wasn't even on assignment. What information other than that he was in intelligence and in the area can you provide, Ruy, to assure us of the credibility and accuracy of this source? (Bjorn Tipling 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

The "invasion of Cambodia" example is laughable. First, it occured 2 months after the coup, not "days". Second, US penetration of Cambodia amounted to a tiny border raid over in 2 months. So I suggest that Ruy should stop drinking the Chomsky-aid and learn a little history or common sense before he makes his outrageous accusations. If he can't answer the questions, I will continue to remaove what amounts to vandalism in the article. CJK 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying it happened in days as well - 60 days. The reason the US invasion only went several miles into Cambodia is because the war spread not only from Vietnam to Cambodia, but back to the US as well. The US government had to kill four students at Kent State protesting the invasion and two students at Jackson state. The government thought this would shut down the students and workers who were against the war in the US, but after the US government murdered six or more people protesting Cambodia's invasion, what happened is almost every college campus in the US was shut down and taken over by the students. The US government didn't want a repeat of May 1968. Ruy Lopez 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Ruy has avoided personal attacks, can't the rest of us do that too? If there are credible sources for US involvment in Cambodian politics, then I think it should be mentioned. One thing I wonder though is how influential the US involvement could have been. The US has a history of helping rebel groups overthrow governments (helped U.S. friendly republicans overthrow the Kingdom of Hawai'i with U.S. Marines, help Philipines run out Spanish - but then took control itself, and also in South America, a failed attempt in Cuba for examples) so it's not as if it's so a ridiculous of an idea that the US might have been involved. But for us to include it in the article really we need a couple of things:
  1. Multiple, reliable, and unconnected sources. (And we need lots of information about these sources).
  2. Knowledge of the extent of possible U.S. involvement. If just say 'the US was involved' then it leaves people guessing as to how involved the country was. Most people will likely assume that the entire thing was orchestrated by the CIA when maybe all they did was provide some intelligence to the leaders of the coup or maybe just some training. We just need more information before we can put this in the article. I don't have a problem with truth, Ruy and Eastermonkey, no matter how unpopular it may be. I do have a problem with unfounded and unsupported conspiracies put in the article because you might be willing to quickly jump to conclusions because of a distaste for the US Government. We just need more information. One vague source in 'intelligence' (did he mop the floors there?) is not good enough - there is an engineer who worked with the U.S. Air Force at Groom Lake in Nevada who says the Air Force had extra-terrestrial equipment, are we to throw out conventional wisdom to belive this one person? No. (Bjorn Tipling 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Ruy has avoided personal attacks, can't the rest of us do that too? What? You don't think accusing me of sockpuppetry is a "personal attack"? Or how about calling us a "peanut gallery"? Whatever the case, we are wasting are time here. If Lopez knew any more, he would have said so by now and answered the questions posted a couple days ago. CJK 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] not widely supported

"not widely supported" (the theory of US involvement in the coup) makes it sound like only a fringe thinks this. But this is to the contrary, the establishment Cambodia scholars in the US like Chandler and Kiernan talk about the US involvement in the coup. I'm not that hung up on the wording, but there is a significant amount of people accept it. Even Adam Carr, who has been reverting me here for a year, doesn't have much trouble accepting it. I don't mind if it is mentioned some doubt this happened, but I think the view that the US probably had something to do with the coup is widespread, not a small or fringe group. I'm not hung up on the wording too much, other than this, I'm not sure exactly what the wording should be, you can say something like "some believe the US was involved, some don't" if you don't like my wording, that's fine. But I don't want wording like the theory is a fringe one or a small group of some people who think this, because it isn't. Ruy Lopez 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with how you've changed the wording. I think it's even better. Also, if established US scholars believe that the US was involved in the coup, then I think you should add that as well, but wording it carefully and adding sources. Since you have their names, maybe you can reference some of their publications that cite this information? (Bjorn Tipling 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC))
I don't like putting anything up that I don't have rock solid as even my rock solid stuff is picked apart by some contributors. So I'll just be general. Chandler talks about one CIA agent who was in contact with Sirik Matak (who was like #2 to Lon Nol in terms of the coup). Kiernan talks about the role of the US Special Forces. As I said, these are establishment historians whose main thing is banging the nonsenical drum of "genocide" in Cambodia. But even they talk about this. I guess this will be the part of the article I'm concentrating on at the moment. There are a lot of references to US involvement in the coup around, I guess I'll be digging them up. I have other sources at hand, but Thornton is the best one, and I think Kiernan and Chandler are good as well although I have to go over all of their stuff, read stuff, check sources and so forth. There's a lot connecting US military and/or intelligence to Sirik Matak, Sihanouk says they were in contact with Lon Nol as well, but even though Sihanouk fought the communists until 1970, on Wikipedia or whatever I guess Thornton, Kiernan and Chandler are more credible because for one thing they're white Western professionals and sources who don't fit that profile are looked at less credibly by many (not by myself of course). And they're looked on as more serious sources for other reasons as well. Ruy Lopez 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
No offence Ruy, but there were a lot of people who died horribly in Cambodia. It's not a nonsensical drum, although I don't know if I would call it genocide, but there was massive murder and other crimes against humanity taking place. The Khmer Rouge is very much responsible for what happened there, although I wont say that they're solely responsible. Also the ethnicity and race of the professors or whatever sources you have, have nothing to do their credibility, and I doubt there are many people editing this article that think so. Credibility is arrived through a trusted system with ethical standards and peer review and the American academic system is such a system. I'm not saying that it does not have it's faults or a sketchy history, but it's better than relying on rouge people who may have mental disorders or god knows what or just want attention. There are other institutions that are also largely credible. Records from organization, transactions, written or otherwise recorded witness testimony, photographs, those are credible. We're not creating an analysis, we're trying to provide factual information. (Bjorn Tipling 02:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
You say this, then you talk about the "Khmer Rouge", an organization that does not exist. In fact, this article alternatively uses the phrase "Khmer Rouge" to refer to: a political party (Communist Party of Kampuchea), a coalition of political parties, an army (the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces), as well as more than one government (one headed by Prince Sihanouk). This article provides factual information not analysis? How about this - "According to the Khmer Rouge's supporters this required forcibly evacuating the cities to the countryside so that people could become self-sufficient. In fact the motive for the evacuations was ideologically reflected in the Maoist doctrine which the Khmer Rouge followed, which praised the rural peasants and detested urban city dwellers." Is that fact or analysis? If this article had facts instead of people screaming in hysterics, it would fall apart in the same manner that logic and facts would fold the house of cards that is Christianity and people screaming about some Jew with magic powers 2000 years ago came back from the dead and that type of stuff. Then there's Adam Carr's graph of deaths in Cambodia. Notice how the drop only exists from 1975-1979, where on the chart are the hundreds of thousands who died when the US Air Force carpet bombed Cambodia in 1973? The answer is simple - those deaths were simply pushed forward two to six years. Carr is covering up for the US massacre of Cambodians. Ruy Lopez 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
You quoted a phrase that is in this article that I absolutely hate. If you look at this, you'll see that I specifically quoted the same passage you did and pointed out how I thought it did not belong in this article. The 'Khmer Rouge' is a communist movement that was ruled by Pol Pot. This is what my encyclopedia (Merriam-Webster) says about it:

Radical communist movement that ruled Cambodia 1975-79. The Khmer Rouge, under the leadership of Pol Pot, opposed the government of the popular Norodom Sihanouk. They gained support after Sihanouk was toppled by Lon Nol (1970) and after U.S. forces bombed the countryside in the early 1970s. In 1975 the Khmer Rouge ousted Lon Nol. Their extraordinarily brutal regime led to deaths from starvation, hardship, and executions that may have reached 2 million. Overthrown in 1979 by the Vietnamese, they retreated to remote areas and continued their struggle for power in Cambodia. The last Khmer Rouge guerrillas surrendered in 1998.

Not how this 'establishment' encyclopedia does not say that genocide occured, and it also notes U.S. involvement. I can't link to this information because it's behind a pay-for subscription site. The Khmer Rouge did exist, but that doesn't mean you don't have a point about how this article has made mistakes. I think we should begin talking about steps to put together a consensus as to how to make this article NPOV. We should assume good faith in each other stop trying to point out how one or the other person is fanatical. I was mistaken to call for your blocking, you do seem reasonable right now so why don't we talk about what needs to change. (Bjorn Tipling 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).
Is there any counter-evidence against the fact that the KR distrusted the urban population? And you can't "assume good faith" with this kid's track record. Seriously, look at his edits sometime. And yeah Ruy, before you say it, I know I got banned, but I'd rather get blocked for edit warring than serving as a full-time commapologist. Dr. Trey 04:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Trey, when Ruy said that you had been blocked I went through the entire history of your messages (because it was pretty interesting). Man, I learned a lot about Wikipedia by having done that. Yes, we have to assume good faith, Trey. I'm even willing to assume good faith in you, but you have to stop the name calling. You should really read the article again. I think we are all willing to accept the truth, even if it happens to not be in favor of whatever particular ideology we hold dear? I just want this article to stop being terrible, and that's going to happen. (Bjorn Tipling 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

This is not a matter of ideology -- at least on the side of those who've been rving Ruy. Other than the CIA ref., his edits have all been whitewash.

Once again, exactly where is this supposed "CIA ref"? CJK 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And why do you keep saying the article's terrible, it's fine so far as I can tell, other than the kid who keeps removing the most important facts from the intro. Dr. Trey 05:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there's stuff I personally don't like in it. Like the paragraph that begins with Khmer Rouge's defenders have justified such actions... but my biggest beef is the NPOV tag, let's get rid of whatever is NPOV in here so we can get rid of the tag. (Bjorn Tipling 05:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
that para may be poorly worded, but it's important to note the fact that certain leftist intellectuals attempted to portray the evacuation as completely necessary. it's also important to mention that the move was ideological in nature, as the KR had destroyed towns (villages? it's in that Mekong Delta link) and evacuated their inhabitants pre-1975. Stoned Trey 06:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It's an article about Khmer Rouge, not 'leftist intellectuals.' The bit about the move should maybe have it's own section if it's notable enough, but it should be supported with sources and be NPOV. (Bjorn Tipling 08:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC))
fine, i'm sure i can back it with a Chomsky quote from that book he wrote. Stoned Trey 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see anything wrong with that part, particularly since the KR are directly contradicted further along. The NPOV tag was placed there so Lopez wouldn't edit the article for the rest of the year, a promise which has not been kept. And I still don't think that Thornton is important enough to be in the article, unless we know more about him. CJK 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how we can "assume good faith" with this Ruy Lopez guy if all he can do is rant on and on about imaginary sockpuppets, imaginary CIA operations, US bombings, and how he doesn't like white, western, Christians. Its pretty disgusting that we have to put up with this utter crap. CJK 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving toward NPOV

Full disclosure: I want to explain my ideological background - I'm pro-capitalist American, albeit a social democratic version of it with universal health care and open borders and less corporate welfare, and a financial safety net for the most unfortunate Americans. I don't believe in communism or fascism because the imagined 'greater good' should never take precedence over the human rights of individuals. I'm probably just left-of-center in American politics, but I'm no Democrat. Why do I disclose this? Because I want this article to be NPOV and because I want everyone to assume good faith. It seems to me that everyone that has been active in the last few weeks has been pushing POV of some kind or other and many of us edit controversial topics regularly:
CJK Ruy Lopez Trey Stone Adam Carr Easter Monkey me
The first three in that list have been focusing heavily on articles that involve communism, and it's obvious that you guys have a point of view that you don't want buried by the other. That's fine. As for Ruy Lopez, I made a terrible mistake out of ignorance calling for him to be blocked. I just went through his entire edit history on Khmer Rouge and a couple of things became clear to me as to what Ruy has been doing:

  1. He's toned down the violence of Khmer Rouge
  2. He wants the name of the article to reflect what the group called itself.
  3. He wants to remove the speculation and theories for the group's actions.

Sockpuppet accusations aside, he has been pretty civil on the talk page. On the points that he's made the first I disagree with. This group is known for the violence that occurred in Cambodia while it was in power, and I believe that should stay. His argument that the US should likewise reflect all the violence it has committed on its page is not a great argument as the US has more historical depth, while this group is almost solely notorious because of the violence that occurred.

As for the name change, I think he has a good point. Nazi party redirects to National Socialist German Workers Party. If the name of the group wasn't Khmer Rouge, then it should redirect to the factually correct name, not the most popular name.

As for the final part, I tend to agree with Ruy on this too. This article isn't about leftist intellectuals, it's not about communism, it's about a specific political power that is notorious for violence and failure (for whatever reason). I don't think vague speculation should be in the article, it's unproven and it's POV-pushing in my opinion. Let's just say what happened and let people make up their own minds. Links to articles that explain ideas like this could be a compromise. I'm not saying Ruy is an angel here, he's made some pretty far off the wall comments about race and religion that, for me reveal a trace of insensitivity and naivety, but he's been courageous in fighting the anti-communist propaganda that this article has been infused with (read the early versions of this article to see what I'm talking about). Wikipedia is not meant to be anti or pro communism, it's meant to be NPOV. Roy has not been NPOV, and it's obvious he cares about communism, but he has been reasonable when given the chance (He didn't just revert my rewording). I know I'm new to this page and maybe that's good, being an outsider and all. What do you people think? (Bjorn Tipling 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

The problem with making it "Communist Party of Kampuchea" is that the organization is universally known as the Khmer Rouge. I don't know the specifics of wiki naming conventions but I'm pretty certain this's standard. I wouldn't take Ruy's complaints about the name seriously -- he thinks it's some kind of "slander" -- why I don't know, but anyway.
I would support moving NSGWP to Nazi Party, unless there is a naming convention that goes against this.
And please stop asking for sensitivity toward Ruy's "objections." I realize you're a new user (I think so at least) but his POV apologetics are well-documented. Stoned Trey 08:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

While I do not care what the name is called, I do care about the whitewashing that goes into the article. And to suggest that we can "move toward NPOV" after years of conflict is somewhat wishful thinking. Going through the archives tells me that Lopez, like most Stalinist/Stalinist apologists, is not serious about negotiating. He simply walks in, rants, throws out a view with scant evidence, and when questioned rants some more, then leaves for a while hoping we get tired of all this eventually. And I can't say it has not been without success, just look at the archives. So Ruy Lopez can't hope to defeat everyone here on an intellectual level. Rather he hopes to divide us and wear us down until we give up. As for comparing our personal biases, I would say that we have been fairly reasonable with keeping our own POV out of articles. Adam has been reasonable, though is probably frustrated with this nonsense. Trey is currently banned for alleged POV pushing, but I think anyone can see that he has been much more even-handed than Lopez, who denies that a Khmer Rouge genocide occured, who thinks that there were free Vietnamese elections in 1976, that there were free elections in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, that West Germany was basically run by unreformed Nazis, that the 9/11 attacks were justified, finds Stalin's crimes questionable, must I go on? Can you imagine what would happen if a rightist user whitewashed the crimes of Hitler and other right wing dictators? They would be banned. Not so with Lopez. Simply, no one wants to arbitrate this guy for whatever reason, even though it would be more than justifiable.

A compromise here simply will not happen, as any "compromise" to Lopez involves ignoring the Khmer Rouge while vastly exaggerating the scale of American bomb damages. In Lopez's world, the US can do no right. Therefore, if he has done any "courageous actions" it is certainly not here and now. CJK 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruy Lopez still won't answer the questions

Ruy Lopez still is reverting the article to include Samuel Thornton, attach the NPOV tag when no debate is going on, and is censoring links he doesn't like. So I'm going to repeat the questions: Why is Thornton so notable? What did he do in the intelligence business? Was he some average Joe guy or a top official? What "information" has he came forward with apart from his own (unverifiable) claims? Why do such shaky allegations have to be in an article that isn't even about the Cambodian coup? Hopefully, we can settle this mess if given a straight answer. CJK 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting... CJK 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

After looking into Thornton, the only reference I can find is two sentences in the book Lopez previously cited. TDC 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing's for sure, calling him an officer is definitely a misrepresentation of who he is/was. From the ref. material cited he is a yeoman, an enlisted man. An intelligence specialist, perhaps, but not an officer, (it's an important distinction). --Easter Monkey 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess we're just gonna revert this forever if he can't answer the questions. CJK 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been on this page for weeks, something suggested by a moderator. Despite all the contention, you are trying to take it off. Also, you have done absolutely no research on the Khmer Rouge, you simply ask me to repeat the same thing over and over again. All of this was discussed weeks ago. Ruy Lopez 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another non-response. Since no one is engaging in an active debate, the NPOV tag is unjustified. CJK 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Occurs to me that a couple of folks on both sides are of the megalomaniacal POV (MPOV) mindset ...the meta-wiki article made me laugh anyway --Easter Monkey 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Asking a simple question is not "maniacal". To avoid anwering it is. I have responded to everything. Ruy has not, just as I had predicted. CJK 19:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Things seemed to have calmed down

And that's good! (Bjorn Tipling 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Perhaps the block on Lopez has something to do with it. He probably won't be showing if he actually has to justify himself. CJK 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
He was blocked? I don't see anything on his talk page about it. He's still editing [5] (Bjorn Tipling 04:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

He was blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system". CJK 23:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevent critic of Michael Vickery's methodology

The Genocide in Cambodia, 1975-79, by Ben Kiernan; Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 22, 1990

The article examines the Statistics on the Cham, but also an overview of the total population, statistics etc. The author answers to Vickery. Seems that I am not the only that accused Vickery of being a genocide denialist, since that is what the answer clearly imply. Fad (ix) 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kropotkin Influences?

Sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] What does this mean?

" Family relationships were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other." 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harris0 (talk • contribs) .

I'm a bit nonplussed. What do you mean by "what does this mean"? Family relationships were banned, husbands and wifes were split up, children taken from their parents. If they tried to communicate with each other and got caught doing or trying to do so they were imprisoned or killed on the spot. Also, imprisonment usually meant death. Seems very clear to me. Please explain what it is that you have a problem understanding. --Easter Monkey 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very broad statement. All family relationships were banned? 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they weren't, it's ridiculous on the face of it. Unfortunately, this page, like much of Wikipedia, is more ruled by irrational hysteria than citation, logic, truth and that sort of thing. Ruy Lopez 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, folks, as always, common sense does apply. The word 'all' does not appear in the statement. In a broad sense yes, family relationships not approved by the state were banned, in that yes, husbands and wifes were split up and children separated from their parents. The state decided which couples would stay together and also arranged marriages between previously unmarried people (or even folks that were previously and still married) were forced onto people by the state. Perhaps that's the change that you are looking for. Unfortunately, I don't have a journal or other written source to make the change, I have several Cambodians that work for me, when they can get past their PSTD and talk about it I have gotten bits and pieces, so take it for what it's worth.
Anyway, I have to ask, Ruy, please take this within the spirit that it is intended: if I found myself to be as misunderstood as you obviously feel you are, I would have left a long time ago and would never have come back...like I said, please don't take this the wrong way, I am merely curious: why do you stay? --Easter Monkey 01:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So this is just word of mouth, without a source? As it stands now, the statement is ridiculous. There is no sense of in what proportion family relations were banned, or why.

[edit] Here we go again

Ruy Lopez has once again inserted the source without anwering any questions as to who exactly Thornton was and how important he was and why his word should be taken at face value. CJK 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have answered this question at great length earlier on this discussion page. Ruy Lopez 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to SUMMARIZE it below. Say, a paragraph. Clearly state who the fellow is and your source for the information. A2Kafir 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget:

1. Thornton was reffering to a coup where Sihanouk would be assassinated. That did not happen, and he is still alive as I type this. 2. Thornton left the navy intelligence in 1969, according to Lopez. Yet the coup was in 1970. So he would not know what went forward. 3. Why does his word deserve any publicity if he hasn't any evidence to support it and is not in a prominent position? CJK 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I don't know what the deal with Thornton is, but there is plenty of material to suggest indirect US support for the 1970 coup. From a book by William Blum: "To what extent, if any, the United States played a direct role in the coup has not been established, but there are circumstances and testimony pointing to American complicity..." (Killing Hope, p137). Blum references Frank Snepp ("the CIA's principal political analyst in Vietnam at this time") as saying that the CIA was cultivating Lon Nol and Son Ngoc Thanh as possible replacements for Sihanouk. He cites Seymour Hersh as saying that Sihanouk's "immediate overthrow had been for years a high priority of the Green Berets reconnaissance units operating inside Cambodia since the late 1960s. There is also incontrovertible evidence that Lon Nol was approached by agents of American military intelligence in 1969 and asked to overthrow the Sihanouk government. Sihanouk made similar charges in his 1973 memoir My War With The CIA, but they were not taken seriously then." (quote cited by Blum from Hersh 1983, The Price of Power, p176). Blum reckons the CIA certainly had foreknowledge of the coup: there was an internal CIA report on the planned coup 6 days before and General William Rosson, deputy Commander of US Forces in Vietnam at the time, said US commanders were informed of the coup several day before and that US support was solicited. Another source (Roger Morris, who was on the NSC staff) is cited as saying the local CIA station told the White House of the planned coup, but not Sihanouk. Frank Snepp is cited (from William Shawcross) as saying the CIA persuaded Sihanouk's mother to send a message to her son that the situation - i.e. demonstrations etc in the runup to the coup - was not serious enough to warrant his return, at a time when his return might have foiled the impending coup. Rd232 talk 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

There are also similar sources (and also John Pilger's work) on US support for the Khmer after the Vietnamese invasion (having previously tried to bomb them into the stone age). eg Blum cites the fact that in November 1980 Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA, visited a Khmer enclave in his capacity as senior foreign policy advisor to President-elect Reagan. Rd232 talk 10:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care about the Nol thing, but if any U.S. contact with the KR occurred in the '80s, it was because at one point they had formed a (tentative) united front with the Khmer People's National Liberation Front and Sihanouk's ANS based on the assumption that a victory would result in a power-sharing govt. (the other two wanted the KR more marginalized or eliminated entirely, for obvious reasons) that would prevent a similar govt. that had ruled from 1973-75. Reagan spoke harshly against the KR and had no intention of returning the group to power. Direct aid was given, yes, but to the KPNLF. Look it up -- I'm not saying the leftist clique you sourced is always inaccurate but you can't only rely on them.
Now, certain human rights groups claimed that the KPNLF and ANS were collaborating with the KR during the conflict, which is a legitimate critique, but this does not change where the U.S. sent aid. The KR were entirely backed by the Chinese. Stoned Trey 10:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Which last remark makes even more apposite the quote I was about to mention: Zbigniew Brzezinski said in spring 1979 "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the [Khmer Rouge]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people.[sic] Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could." Blum (Rogue State), cited from Elizabeth Becker, When the War was Over: Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Revolution (Public Affairs: NY 1998, p435). Rd232 talk 10:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh the DAMNING quote. I'd have to see the larger context cuz that looks suspicious, taken out of context. Even if Brzezinski did say something like that, though, doesn't change the fact of where U.S. support was going in the '80s, and if we're talking about the Carter administration they basically took a "let Cambodians work it out" (ie, we don't much care about the Vietnamese-propped regime) attitude -- they didn't want to embroil themselves there. As for China, they had been supporting the KR during their time in power, and had every reason from their standpoint to continue doing so, given the Sino-Soviet struggle for influence. They didn't need any encouragement.
Though I find this argument all the more amusing coming from the same people who don't think Pol Pot was that bad of a dude. Stoned Trey 11:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
That is completely untrue. And you have the cheek to describe Pilger's work as "misleading propaganda" (edit sumary, IP:64.7.89.54)! Rd232 talk 12:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What's untrue, my last comment? Well OK it might be unfair to Pilger, but not to Chomsky, who falls in the same far-left range.
Pretty sure that mischaracterises Chomsky too. Rd232 talk 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Did Brzenski say anything before/after that (in same discussion) to elaborate on his position? Did he just mean that the Chinese had the right to support the KR and the U.S. wouldn't bother them about it? Was he just trying to buy time (similar to recognizing Democratic Kampuchea at the UN after it was gone) so the U.S. could find an alternative like the KPNLF, fearing Communist threats to Thailand (which was historically unstable, a longtime U.S. ally, and had Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as its neighbors)? I'd be curious to know all this, or if he has further writings on the issue.
"Did he just mean that the Chinese had the right to support the KR and the U.S. wouldn't bother them about it?" No. The quote is too unambiguous. Rd232 talk 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Pilger is arguing for a "longtime friendship" which is bull -- read some other quotes from the Carter administration (I'll dig some up if you want) and you'll see that they were not very interested in Indochina. As for the '80s, I've already addressed this -- the Reagan admin. gave some support to the KPNLF. If Pilger wants to talk about how some contact or one quote proves that the U.S. was gung-ho for the KR that's fine, but it doesn't belong in the article. Get a more neutral source saying the same thing and you might have a case -- these guys might be "corroborating sources," but they cherry-pick and don't include other sources that call their claims into question, like the aid I mentioned. Stoned Trey 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Then dig quotes, find neutral sources that summarise, whatever. Just don't dismiss this with a flick of the wrist as not worthy of debate. Rd232 talk 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Well you're the one who's bringing this up in the first place. And it ISN'T worthy to debate all these guys, who find the CIA's handprints on everything. OK, so Pilger has a quote from Brzenski and Blum has an incident of CIA contact with the KR. That's not sufficient evidence for a "longtime friendship" as Pilger's title suggests. If you can prove that the KR were sustained only thanks to U.S. moves and that the Chinese weren't already planning to fund them like they did, then go right ahead -- but you'll need more than one quote and other small incidents, particularly given the Carter administration's actions in the '70s, which involved no funding of KR and were unconcerned with Indochina (let the Cambodians work it out). Stoned Trey 07:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion that I should "prove that the KR were sustained only thanks to U.S. moves" smacks of trolling (AFAIK nobody has said such a thing). I'll come back to this in a few weeks if I have the time, to discuss the reasonable hypothesis that the US and UK supported various anti-Sihanouk and anti-Vietnamese elements at different times, including, at least indirectly, the KR. Rd232 talk 11:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

lol, "trolling." i was referencing Pilger, who clearly seems to think so based on his article. and i wasn't arguing that last point. the U.S. _did_ support the CGDK as a political front, which included the KR and the two other groups. but active aid was sent specifically to non-KR forces. Stoned Trey 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

More to the point (a) what context could significantly change the reading of the Brzezinski quote? And (b) what does your edit summary "Pilger's disproven view. already addressed" refer to? Who disproved it, when? Sources (or link to previous discussion, if any) instead of assertion please, and also please leave the link in the article until we've discussed this some more. Rd232 talk 12:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the German article on Khmer has said since late 2004 (50 edits by a dozen editors since then) that the 1970 coup was US-backed, while the Cambodia article states "with US approval" (not sure how long that's been there). I notice you ignored the long paragraph about the 1970 coup I started this section with. Rd232 talk 12:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Blum, I think his credibility may be questionable, as he is not the most neutral guy with issues like these. Its isn't any more credible than Nixon or Kissinger saying they did not back the coup because large scale aid programs did not begin for some time after the coup. And Seymour Hersh, though he uncovered My-Lai, has throughout the years made a number of wild conspiracy charges. I think some more evidence is needed as to how Lon Nol was suposedly "cultivated" and why Sihanouk would believe his mother over the news reports. I agree there was complicity, though. CJK 14:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Blum is largely collating sourced evidence from other people, so I don't think his credibility is really the issue. As for Hersh, I see nothing resembling "wild conspiracy charges" in Seymour Hersh. And the reason Sihanouk believed his mother is because (a) she was the Queen and (b) we're talking about the pre-coup disturbances, not the coup itself. In general, more evidence/sources would be good (I don't really have time now or for a while) if everyone's open to reasonable debate. Rd232 talk 18:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm refferring to Hersh's allegation such as the 1993 assassination attempt on George Bush was fabricated or that the Iraqi elections were just a giant fraud. I just have a difficult time taking allegations from Blum seriously, perhaps some more quotes/documents are needed to prove that Lon Nol was "cultivated" and that the CIA somehow persuaded Sihanouks mother to write him a letter (And how?) CJK 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Aha, I'm not aware of those Hersh allegations. Well there is certainly more material to discuss, but I don't have time to go into it for a while. I'd ask that people please leave the Pilger article link. It should not be so difficult to find links addressing his views/evidence, and this will be useful for the reader. Rd232 talk 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
His supposed evidence should still be scrutinized. It's easy to cherry-pick based on predetermined ideology. Stoned Trey 23:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Whose evidence? Hersh's? Everbody's evidence should be scrutinized, goes without saying. I'm not very familiar with the 93 assassination attempt and what came out of it, but Hersh has a long history of getting stories that turn out to be very true, My Lai for which he won a pulitzer, and he was also the first to latch on to the Glomar Explorer, Project Jennifer business. So, although he might have gotten biased over the years, he did have a lot of really good sources and did get a lot of other things right as well. --Easter Monkey 04:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do you like spending your time like this?

(My comments are only about the characterization of the US with regard to their activities that affected Khmer Rouge.) I recommend the two sides (America did no right v. America did no wrong) find someone to arbitrate. Find an historian. I think both sides need to consider the realities of power. WAS 4.250 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a nice "moderate" position you got there but not everything is always "in-between." Stoned Trey 02:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, compromise on representation of views should be possible (WP:NPOV). I was just wondering if anyone had read Kenton J. Clymer's book, and if so whether it's helpful. [6] Rd232 talk 01:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

This article has almost no line citations. I doubt the editors will be able to reach consensus unless this changes. Durova 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Just to formally announce to anyone who is interested, arbitration has been requested with (largely) regards to this page. WP:RFAR CJK 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KR take power and Thornton

Everyone seems to agree that Thornton said what he said, that I properly cited it etc. CJK is claiming it is not important enough to put here and removes it.

In the beginning of this article it says the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, ruled Cambodia from 1975 until 1979. In 1975, the person who had been deposed in 1970, Sihanouk, is who took power, not the "Khmer Rouge". The government was Sihanouk's GRUNK government, and the army was the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces, which was under Sihanouk as well. Those who want to say that the Khmer Rouge was in charge in 1975 will have to prove it and show the relevancy of their case. Ruy Lopez 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sihanouk took power? Seriously? He was imprisoned in his palace, the Red Khmer, Khmer communists, Khmer Rouge, People's Liberation whatever, or whatever else you want to call them, read: Saloth Sar and the rest of his brothers, Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphan, etc. held the real power, no matter what they told the rest of the world.
In any case, Khmer Rouge is the name of the article because whatever else it was made up of, whatever else they actually called themselves, that's what English speakers know it as. Wikipedia's policy is that truth, as such, is relative. It's consensus that matters, not truth. "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." [7] Judging the rightness or wrongness of conventional wisdom is outside the scope of the wikipedia, so I don't see a problem with the name of the article or the rest of the article and everything that links to it calling the organization in question Khmer Rouge.
As to the substance of the objections, sure, Sihanouk had issues (and still does to this day), he's prone to meglomania, paranoia (and rightfully so, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you, right?) but to suggest that he was in power and responsible for what happened from 75 to 79 is "ridiculous on the face of it" as you say. At the time the country was so closed off that no one on the outside had any idea what was going on. Sure, the U.S. made mistakes, paranoia, guilt, etc. was rampant on all sides, the U.S. didn't want to support the Vietnamese/Chinese/Soviets whoever during the early 80's, so the only other alternative was the KR. Was it the right move? Obviously not, just goes to show you that nobody is perfect, we all make mistakes, some mistakes are bigger then others, but that's life. Crying about it and shifting the blame doesn't work either.
People ask all the time: how could something like this happen? How could the Nazis grab power and try to systematically eliminate a whole sector of the population? How could Cambodians kill each other just because Angka demanded it? But I'll tell you, we're asking the wrong questions. It's easy to look at history from the safety of time and distance while injecting our own cultural biases, but I agree with Rudyard Kipling: the first condition of understanding a country is to smell it. What does that mean? It means that you have to get your feet firmly planted on the ground, "walk a mile in my shoes," and see for yourself what the conditions are and what the people are like. As someone who has spent a great deal of time in both Germany and Cambodia (I was an exchange student in Germany in college) I can tell you that although I won't profess to understand what would make people do what they did, I can see the mentality and imagine the conditions that existed in order to facilitate it.
In the end, people are people. Some are more gullible then others, some are more sceptical, some have a natural aversion to authority, some take authority at its word, that's culture. The Khmer Rouge and the Nazis would have a hard time gaining power in somewhere like the U.S. for these very reasons. If you tell a Cambodian that something is true, and you do so from a position of authority, even if that authority is merely perceived, then he'll believe you, no questions asked. And that's as true today as it was 30 years ago, I see it every day. --Easter Monkey 04:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, over 24 hours and not a peep from anyone?--Easter Monkey 09:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with all you said, although "U.S. support" for the KR remains to be seen. I'd like to see the original source for the Brzezinski quote, and even if it's factual/not taken out of context, the fact remains that U.S. aid in the '80s went to the non-Communist opposition. Stoned Trey 02:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
As has been pointed out Brzezinski said what he did in 1979 when he was serving as Carter's national security advisor. The timing of the quote of course means that it had nothing to do with what happened in the 80's. I don't see where the confusion of the meaning or verifiability of it is though, Elizabeth Becker is a reliable author, Kiernan isn't bad either and both have attributed the quote to him. Truthfully though I think that the quote puts a rather good spin on what the U.S. was doing during that period, hardly "damming" but rather encouraging that the Carter administration had recognized that there is a difference between how you want the world to be and how it actually is. You can make a stand on principle or do what you can within the reality of the situation. It was the proverbial "rock and a hard place." The U.S. realized that the Cambodian people themselves needed help, ("The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination.") and that the only practical way to do so given the realities at the time was to let the Chinese do it. Also, you have to take this within the broader historical context, check out this (last sentence of the first paragraph) for some insight into the thinking back then. U.S. - Chinese relations have always been full of twists and turns, i.e. that the U.S. had some strange dealings with the Chinese is not surprising at all. Can you imagine what it must have been like in the White House when Nixon decided to go to China? Holy cow!
Anyway, after the Vietnamese got pissed off enough about all of the border incursions and came in and took over is a different story of course. Given the previous 20 year history at that point, the U.S. wasn't about to give the Vietnamese a pat on the back, so where to turn? But even then, I think that the one true sticking point in both discussions, about the 80's and the Brzezinski quote, is the definiton and use of the word support. It can take on different meanings, one sense might be with beans and bullets, another would be diplomatic recognition, still another a tacit acceptance that a third party, who is in a position to do anything at all, although you might not agree with them on everything, is trying to do even a little bit.
On another note, just today the RCAF turned over two of their three buildings to the KR tribunal, watch for an update from me on that section. --Easter Monkey 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I give up

I gave up on Wikipedia months ago, but now I am giving up on this article.

I am removing all of my edits that I managed to get in here somehow. How the US bombed Cambodia, and how the bombing caused the starvation blamed on the KR. How the KR wasn't in power in 1975. The ridiculous quoting of Khieu Samphan. How the US supported the KR from 1979 on. All of that, my edits which somehow made it in, are thrown into the memory hole of history. I'm giving up on this article, permanently. Ruy Lopez 23:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see you when you make your new sock. CJK 18:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think these comments (minus the "I give up") are fantastic and long overdue. I have not been through the 7 pages of archives, but even if I had, I doubt that I could pull together everything that you or anybody else objected to in such a succinct manner. You just summed up in four sentences all of the disputes that you have with the article (unless of course there are more). Here they are one by one with a summary response from me:
  • U.S. bombing of Cambodia:
What's the issue? See Shawcross for a very detailed discussion of the "Menu bombings". No dispute from me that the U.S. bombed Cambodia.
  • Starvation attributed to KR really was a result of the U.S. bombings:
That's a bit of a harder sell for me. Sure, the bombings contributed to people joining the KR and led to a great deal of hardship for those areas that were bombed, but starvation, killings, etc. were widespread, while the bombings were concentrated along the border regions, and a bit further in once the various strongholds began abandoning those immediate border areas.
  • KR in power in 1975:
Partially addressed above. Also, the Cambodians themselves acknowledge that the Khmer Rouge took over Phnom Penh, the seat of power, in April, 1975. Every year the Cambodians have remembrances of the "fall of Phnom Penh" right in the midst of Khmer New Year. What else could be the definition of "taking power" but capturing the capital city and controlling the government?
  • Khieu Samphan's quote:
Don't know enough about it to comment.
  • U.S. support for the KR from 1979 on:
Addressed in the above section.
  • Samuel Thornton:
An intelligence specialist stationed in the region, left in 1969. Quoted by Seymour Hersh, a reliable author. Was the U.S. complicit in the Lon Nol coup? I say probably, and I'm not a leftist, nor an American critic. But, as it has been pointed out, Thornton left before the coup took place, thus he could not have known the specifics as they happened. All Thornton can testify to is that in the years building up to the coup, the U.S. had been involved on some level in the planning stages prior to 1969. So what's the right way to write that up in the article?
Anyway, I truly hope that you reconsider, I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need all types to make this encyclopedia work. --Easter Monkey 03:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. involvement in the 1970 coup

The current version:

In 1970 Cambodia's neutralist ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, was deposed while out of the country by a coup d'état which brought General Lon Nol to power. Some American critics have speculated CIA involvement in the coup, but this theory is not supported by everyone.

Is still giving me a headache, how about this:

In 1970 Cambodia's neutralist ruler, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, was deposed while on a trip to Moscow and Beijing by a coup d'état which brought General Lon Nol to power. At least one U.S. intelligence official has come forth and made claims that the U.S. had been involved in early planning stages of the coup, but any U.S. involvement in the actual coup remains speculation. [8]

Note the other subtler changes that I'll make anyway, add where Sihanouk was and redirect the coup d'etat link to the article specifically about the coup itself. --Easter Monkey 07:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Third World Traveler is not a reliable source. Who are the other officials? And even if this was true, these people still aren't that notable to be mentioned, as this article is not about the coup. CJK 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Third World Traveler is just where the excerpt can be found on the internet, the source is Seymour Hersh's book. Would changing it to a footnote citing Hersh's book work?
Other officials? There is no mention of any other "officials", "at least one official" doesn't make any claims that anybody else has said anything of the kind. My proposed version is purposefully vague, while not actually trying to make Thornton out to be anything other then what he is.
Here's what I have a problem with: 1) "Some American critics..." who exactly? Ruy Lopez? Boy would that ever be non-notable...Anyway, this is the definition of weasel wording. 2) "...not supported by everyone." Again, who exactly is everyone?
My proposed version makes no claims, and in fact goes out of its way to point out, that no definitive evidence that the U.S. supported a coup exists. On the question of notability of this particular source: the person himself is not mentioned, I agree with you, Samuel Thornton is not notable in and of himself, where "notability" comes in is that he has made a statement that he recalled that there was talk of U.S. involvement in early planning stages, thus the purposeful use of made claims (claims != what actually happened). Samuel Thornton himself is not notable, I will not dispute that, but that the U.S. may have been involved in planning a coup prior to 1969 is notable. --Easter Monkey 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I meant it to be "leftist critics" but it kept getting changed to "American critics". Everyone is everyone who has studied the Indochina conflict. "at least one official" makes it sound like there is more than one. Other plots are not relevant to this article. CJK 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, got it, thanks. Still, "Some leftist critics" and "Some American critics" and then "everyone" or "everyone who has studied...etc." amounts to the same thing, see the first example on the "avoid weasel words" page. In any case, it's terrible prose and doesn't really contribute that much to the rest of the article anyway, so here goes, I'm going to take a very bold step....--Easter Monkey 10:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, then say "some critics say so and some others deny it". CJK 20:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll be even more direct, it's not the characterization of the "critics" that's the problem, the adjective doesn't matter, it's the "some critics say thus" that is the problem. Some people, some jag-offs, some far-left conspiracy theory nut-jobs, it doesn't matter, "some xyz critics say such and such" without going into who these critics actually are is weasel wording. BUT, as far as I'm concerned, there's good news: the current version [9] avoids the problem all together by eliminating any mention of who may or may not have supported the coup, as this information isn't strictly related to the substance of the rest of the article anyway. --Easter Monkey 01:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to 'Purism' in "Political Ideology"

I wanted to understand more about this line, "The tribal pariahs, who were very accommodating, left such an impression that Saloth Sar considered them pure. This kind of purity was then adopted to the ideology." So I clicked on the link to 'pure' and landed at a page about cubism. Does this mean that cubism was somehow incorporated into the Khmer Rouge doctrine? If so, there should be deeper discussion on this! If not... the link should go away, but I don't feel comfortable editing this page with my limited knowledge of the subject. Please advise or correct. Rachel Forsmann 20:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks on Ruy

I have wanted to stay out of this debate, and will continue to stay out of this debate for the most part.

  • First of all: I know nothing about Cambodia, and would have a difficult time finding it on the map.
  • Second of all: I know Ruy has been shown to be a sock puppet, and I am aware of the harsh sanctions imposed on him on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of VeryVerily. I do not condone Ruy's behavior and I actually encouraged and helped TDC check Ruy's alleged sockpuppets.
  • Third: I actively throw around labels on my adversaries. My favorite is: "apologist", but I have also been banned for comparing CJK's views to a holocaust denier. So I am well aware that it is a valid argument to call me a hypocrite by pointing out CJK and Adam own character attacks. It is very important to remember: my own personal character attacks does not lessen the guilt or innocence of those who attack Ruy. In other words, no matter how much I may use character attacks against others, that in no way makes CJK and Adam's character attacks more acceptable.

Character Attacks on Ruy

Now those three points are out of the way, The reason I am here is to mention the repeated attacks on Ruy, particularly by Adam and CJK. My cursory (quick) look at these comments here and I notice how much Adam and CJK especially use character attacks on Ruy.

Adam: "Because his "reasonable" persona is a facade for the fact that he is a dedicated communist, as is reflected in all his edits."
CJK: "Ruy Lopez can't provide another source of decent credibility (actually, the first one does not have credibility either) because he is a blind anti-American communist propagandist. That might sound a bit harsh, but its true, as any respected user knows."
CJK: "If Lopez was just an "anti-American communist" I would be OK, however he is more than that. He is an outright liar and a fraud, a liar because of his false accusations on a personal and historical level, a fraud because of his inability to answer the questions or cite decent sources."
Dr. Trey: "There is no "disagreement" about this. Whether or not Lopez is personally a communist, he spends a lotta time on wik making sure nothing bad's said about Uncle Joe, Uncle Ho, Our Dear Leader...you name it"

CJK and Adam call Ruy a communist and anti-American. As I have said in the RfC against Ruy, unless Ruy has come out and said he was a communist, it is unfair and irrelevant to label him as a communist.

But even if he did admit that he was a communist, his political affiliation in no way lessens or increases the rationality of his arguments. In otherwords: seperate the argument from the man.

Red baiting

You would think Red baiting died with the death of the USSR, but it is alive and well here on wikipedia. Throughout American history, American politicans have labeled others communists to destroy their ideas and sometimes even take away their freedoms. It has been a very effective tool of oppression and fear.

Moral repugnance

In high school my english teacher said that Hitler's experiments on human beings did provide some scientific merit in understanding disease. She tempered this justification by saying that she was only trying to be "balanced". I was sickened by the very idea of this "balance" for years afterword. But, admitatly, she was right, despite the moral repugnance of her ideas, Hitler's experiments on human beings did provide some scientific merit in understanding disease. Adam and CJK may see Ruy's edits as morally repugnant, as justifying the KR. This is probably true. But there are always two sides to every story. Silencing Ruy because his views are repugnant is wrong. Silencing Ruy because his wikipedia edit behavior breaks the rules is right.

The first contentious paragraph on this talk page reads:

The Khmer Rouge's defenders have justified such actions by claiming that the country was on the verge of mass starvation as a result of U.S. bombing campaigns (figures for deaths vary considerably between 50,000 and 500,000 Cambodians), and that it was impossible to transport sufficient food to feed an urban population of between 2 and 3 million people. According to the Khmer Rouge's supporters this required forcibly evacuating the cities to the countryside so that people could become self-sufficient. In fact the motive for the evacuations was ideologically reflected in the Maoist doctrine which the Khmer Rouge followed, which praised the rural peasants and detested urban city dwellers.

This paragraph seems like it is explaining the other side, as despicable as that other side may be. Isn't that the whole idea of NPOV? To explain both sides of the story? I have argued somewhere else that their is a fine line between historical context and justifying attrocities. Does this paragraph step over the line? I will leave that to the KR experts to decide.

Adam: I was there

Another issue that bothers me is how Adam repeatedly mentions that he has been to Cambodia. For some reason whenever he mentions this I remember the Republican Senator who traveled to the Philippines during the Philippine-American War and constantly used this argument to defuse critics of the war: "I was there" he would constantly repeat. How long were you in Cambodia Adam? I lived in Ukraine for 2 and a half years and I noticed how ex-pats usually stuck to themselves and never really assimulated into the culture, even after 2 and a half years of living there, and even writing a guidebook on Ukraine, I still am hesitant to use "I was there" to trump others arguments, because even living in Ukraine for 2 and a half years was not long enough. How long were you in Cambodia Adam? Do you know Cambodian?

Is there any actual Cambodians here editing this page? Or is it all Americans?

It really troubles me that so many people on this talk page want to silence Ruy simply because they disagree with his controversial political views.

I look forward to CJK's and Adam's response.

Signed.Travb 12:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevancy of this long exposé with the content of the article? Fad (ix) 20:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Bombings

As of today I can't find any reference to US bombing of Cambodia. Most historians agree that they played a major role in Khmer Rouge's rise to power. Ericd 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Most historians do not agree that the bombing played a major role in the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The rise of the Khmer Rouge was due to a civil war in Cambodia, Sihanouk lending his support to the Khmer Rouge and almost unlimited military supplies provided by Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China. The bombing caused massive destruction in Cambodia, but it didn't create the KR or make them do what they did. 168.127.0.51 19:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't wrote that US bombings "create the KR or make them do what they did". I wrote that they played a major role in their rise to power. Ericd 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "secret" bombing

"Most historians do not agree" but obviously they were not there when the bombs went off. The Khmer Rouge found the US Bombings to be a great reason to evacute the Cambodians and fuel their hatred toward Western Civilation. Thanks a lot Nixon.

No, those were merely excuses on the part of the Khmer Rouge. Though these bombings were horrendous US atrocities against the Khmer and Vietnamese people, they were just one excuse of many which the Khmaey Krahom used or could have used. --Ionius Mundus 01:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideology

Why so few on ideology ? Ericd 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because so little has been written about it in English and much of it is incorrect, contradictory or simply does not stack up with the facts of what went on in DK. Plus of half dozen or so academics who specialise in the Khmer Rouge era all of them disagree with eachother and spend a great deal of time abusing eachothers theories. I imagine you could write somthing up, but you'd have to split it into five or six sub-sections, each one explaining one particular theory.- anon


There is little on ideology because there is little information available even for academics. Many of the key people died during the civil war, KR rule or the Vietnamese period. The Khmer Rouge was a very violent and insular movement so there is also little record from historians/journalists.because few were allowed within the country or the areas under KR control before/after their rule.168.127.0.51 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


Why do you people bother with these articles? It's not as if the material can be trusted. Let the proffessionals take care of this kind of stuff

There ideology can be sufficiently judged based upon their actions. --Ionius Mundus 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth is 'Fundinernment'?

Just wondering what 'Fundinernment' means, it's used in the 'Recovery and trials' section and a google search brings up only wikipedia hits and the same line used in a few different articles. Quote from article: "Fundinernment said that due to the poor economy and other financial commitments, it could only afford limited funding for the tribunal." Thesm 13:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article

Now that Ruy Lopez has apparently either left or been banned from Wikipedia, I am returning to this article in the hope that sensible discussion can now take place. Using David P Chandler The Tragedy of Cambodian History and Steve Heder Cambodian Communism and the Vietnamese Model (both recognised authorities) I am going to rewrite it from scratch since it is a horrible mess after months of edit warring. I am also proposing to move the bulk of the article to Communist Party of Cambodia, which was what the organisation that actually ran the country from 1975 to 1979 was called at that time (Kampuchea is just another spelling of Cambodia). Left at this article will be an account of the origins and various meanings of the term "Khmer Rouge." Is everyone OK with that? Adam 12:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

We also have a long history of the Khmer Rouge regime at Democratic Kampuchea, so we don't need to duplicate that here. This article should focus on the history of th party itself. Adam 07:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the 1980 CIA estimates

I've removed the claim that the CIA estimated 50,000-100,000 people died under the Khmer Rouge. This is not what the report said. Its a commonly reported twisting of the report by people with a certain POV. The report says that 250,000 "new people" were targeted for execution and estimated that roughtly 40% were directly killed. The report does not claim that these were the ONLY deaths under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. The report never claims to present a comprehensive or authoritative estimate for deaths in Cambodia under the KR government. The "new people" referred to in the report who were selected for execution were specific military/administrative/political enemies of the Khmer Rouge.

[edit] Now deceased

Hes died please update page as more information ecomes avaliable.--Lucy-marie 00:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong flag?

See details here: http://flagspot.net/flags/kh-rouge.html --Dmitri Lytov 10:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

why is the wrong flag still being used, it is a French far-right nationalist flag on the page. Does no one here read French or Spanish? see the quote of François Ponchaud in the link above.
Yes, this flag should be removed. This is a machine translation of parts of the abovementioned text: "We, foreign spectators, we were completely disconcerted: It was finished then thus, a fratricidal, cruel war, of five years of duration during which not headquarters had been given neither of a side neither of another? They were these that were found here, then, the terrible revolutionary soldiers, so few but so energetic? Did not it do more than growing our amazement al to see to arrive two jeeps, without doubt of officials, raising a flag with a cross in the shape of gallows on blue and red fund. Strange flag for the khmeres red!" (..) "¿Who composed then that first group? It was known subsequently that the man of black diver was called Hem Keth Gave and was a son of an elderly, republican general -mistake; might be 'former' - home secretary. Around two hundred men, the majority students, they accompanied; they were to salary of the general one Lon Odd, brother of the marshal Lon Nol former-president of the Republic Khmera, and they wanted in any shape or form to snatch the victory to the khmeres red, disarming, before them, to the governmental soldiers, and establishing a new government in place of that of Mr. Long Boret, then prime minister. They were presented like the 'Monatio' or national movement', that the same khmeres red did not identify immediately" (pay 17). "Magnus 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maoist?

I'm not sure labelling the Khmer Rouge "Maoist" is in anyway factually correct and seems to me to be too POV oriented. Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge never took on the label as a "Mao Tsetung Thought" or "Maoist" Party. I also see really no references to the ideological backround of Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot himself was eccletically influenced by people from the French Communist Party and Kropotkin's work. The only real link I can see between Mao and Khmer Rouge is that Mao briefly met Polt Pot and other Khmer leaders in 1975, and that China provided aid to the Khmer Rouge....but this is a tedious link to ideological connections. --Riot Fred 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge not Maoist

What is it with the belief that Khmer Rouge was Maoist? Or Extreme Maoist?

This statement is just an exaggeration by many scholars. Even Phillip Short, after an interviewer asked what's were the similarities between Mao and Pol Pot, he said both of them were communist and that's it. He wrote two separate biographies, which are extensive with an agenda, but are reliable despite the biases Short shows through the books.

The Western media portray the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot as Maoist or Extreme Maoist. How can they be Maoist if they have no Maoist characteristics within it? Yes, they were supported by China, but that was because it was in opposition with Vietnam and neighboring countries to have allies. Mao even hated the Khmer Rouge for their development and their lack of focusing in infrastructure and feudal-like governing.

Paracite 15:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the references to the Khmer Rouge being "Maoist". I can't find any evidence that the movement followed or endorsed maoism. The claims that are made in that regard seem not to be based on the idelogy of the Khmer Rouge but rather on their alliance with China and misunderstandings about attitudes toward farmers in KR/Maoist idelogy. 168.127.0.51 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I have recently read a book by Wilfred Burchett, The China-Cambodia-Vietnam Triangle, that clarifies this 'Maoist' thing... Sorry, sent the book back to the library so can't quote it, but Mr. Burchett states that Pol Pot group were all relatively young hyper-Leninist students that had only recently returned from, yes, France. NO ideological ties at all to Chinese Communism; both China and the US 'supported' the Khmer Rouge as a balance to Vietnamese influence in the area.
Burchett is (was?) an Austrailian jounalist who lived and traveled in all these countries during the late 50's to the late 70's at least. I'm not sure of his 'neutrality' but his personal views do seem to have changed and matured over the course of years in the above book, which is a compilation of his articles.Pat Struthers 10:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Burchett was a communist and was a lifelong propagandist for whichever communist regime was employing him at the time. He cannot be used as a reliable source on these matters. Adam 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gah. Ok, guess I walked into this one... Was he a Communist (big C) or just a 'journalist-not-following-the-Establishment-line'? I'm pretty sure David Halberstam and Neal Sheehan and Bernard Fall were all called Communists, too, at one time or another. It is clear from his (Mr. Burchett's) writing that he was certainly no, ummmm, 'rightist', anyway. From the books I've read on the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam, he seems have facts straight, at least. In any case, shouldn't we read what the opposition is writing to make sure we're staying honest?
As for 'propoganda'.. have you read the book? If the Chinese or the Khmer Rouge were paying him they sure didn't get their money's worth. Vietnam? Maybe so. Do you have any suggestions, reference-wise on this period? The wikis here are on it are still in a pretty chaotic state. I'd appreciate your suggestions; Burchett's book was literally the only one I could find on the post-Vietnam invasion period.Pat Struthers 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No he was an actual real-live big-C comrade-Stalin-is-the-great-leader-and-teacher-of-the-peoples Communist. After the Sino-Vietnamese split he sided with Hanoi so his work at that time must be seen as Vietnamese propaganda. But he was an experienced journalist so his work reads better than most propaganda. That of course makes him all the more insidious. No, sorry, I don't have better sources. I think the debate about whether or not the KR was Maoist is pretty futile. They claimed that their ideology was totally original, and that should be noted. But it was obviously true that Mao's writings were part of the ideological mix that gave rise to them, and that also ought to be noted. Of course Mao never tried to abolish cities or exterminate the entire intelligentsia. Adam 11:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mao did try to abolish much of the intelligensia during the cultural revolution and did send many of them to the countryside where all suffered and many died. This should not be taken as supporting the idea that the KR's were maoists. 152.163.100.200 02:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to correct

"In the past, Vietnam was a province of China" - this sentence is wrong

It would be correct to say that Vietnam was a tributary of China. Adam 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children Killers not mentioned

I went to Cambodia this summer and I went to the museum that displays information about this crazy genocide.

First of all, the museum is actually a school. When the Khmers invaded, the school was evacuated and the class rooms were used as prisons to keep normal civilians inside. Inside these classrooms today are still the beds and chains that bound the prisoner to the room. On the wall of each classroom is a photo of the corpse found in the room when American or French (I forgot who came right after the genocide) soldiers discovered it.

One of the rooms were completely filled with photos. Not only were the photos of victims but also the photos of the ruthless killers. The amazing thing is, none of the killers were older than twenty. Most of the killers, including girls, were estimated to be around fifteen and sixteen, mostly adolescents from the worst part of Cambodia where guerilla bandits frequent. Adolescents were recruited as soldiers for this genocide because they could be easily manipulated to torture and kill fellow civilians.

Pictures in another room showed weapons and tools used for torture. One of the rooms showed cells made of bricks that were clearly exposed so that soldiers could patrol and keep eye on the prisoners. The whole school museum screamed of pain from lost souls.

In Reply: I'm not sure about this, but I will say a different thing. Children were used to find out and point out suspected traitors, so they can become killed. Just like how the movie Equilibrium uses children to point out people. Paracite 05:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pre-1979 US aid of the KR / DK?

Without the Soviet support, China and the United States came to aid the Khmer regime. seems to indicate that there was US aid to the KR and/or DK before 1979. While there are ample sources that talk about US direct and indirect aiding of the KR post-1979, I have not come across any sources that say that the US was aiding the KR pre-1979. Most sources (including Elizabeth Becker's first-hand account) only talk about the presence of Chinese advisers in Phnom Penh. -- Thaths 05:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Main photo

Main photo should be of a Khmer Rouge personality, not of victims of their slaughter. Let's remain NPOV, even to the bad guys ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly NPOV to say that the most significant thing the KR regime did was to kill large numbers of people, and the photo to serves to illustrate the point. Adam 08:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I would have to disagree that it is NPOV. It should really be a photo of like Sherurcij said. The photo shows a plain biased view. I strongly suggest using this photo from this link of some of the Khmer Rouge leadership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kr4.JPG . The picture currently of the Khmer Rouge doesn't show exactly except a facade that's not neutral. We should use the actual picture of some of the leaders instead and use the photo of the prisoners, detainees, victims, etc. within the body of the wiki article instead. Just because Khmer Rouge were such a horrible group of people I don't see the wikipedia article on Hitler's Nazi Party displayed a picture of Jewish people being killed or interned while seeing starving people. So why do it to Khmer Rouge? It should be the picture of how some of the leadership looked like. Or maybe use the Flag instead.

Paracite 03:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)(edited on 12 Dec. 2006)

The flag is bogus. Adam 11:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I can argue in the section is was at is irrelevant to the section to the article. I switched the pictures according to the section that seemed most relevant.

Please explain why it is bogus. Or were you refering to the national flag? I was confused with what you were saying haha. Paracite 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/h/m/Talk%7EKhmer_Rouge_6974.html"