User talk:GuloGuloGulo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] welcome?

Nobody has welcomed you yet, but you seem to know your way around better than I do. If nobody has welcomed you, welcome!

LegCircus 15:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

I welcomed him yet, see his page history. Sam [Spade] 15:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My dialogue with Very concerning the KR article

[edit] Your tools for preventing edit wars...

...might be useful if it wasn't for people like yourself. GuloGuloGulo 08:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

They are appropriate for some cases, but not others. There's a difference between run-of-the-mill content disputes and repeated attacks on articles. VeryVerily 08:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In other words, they are appropriate when you have a problem with someone's version of the article, but not when someone has a problem with your version. I would be more understanding if you had participated in the discussions that took place when the article was protected. Characterizing edits, however significant, as "attacks" doesn't leave one thinking that you are willing to discuss the issue and meet consensus. GuloGuloGulo 08:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
No, that is not an accurate rephrasing. If you're going to say things like that, don't bother posting on my Talk page. I participated in the discussions back in March the last time this occured, and at any rate the others were doing fine without me. VeryVerily 08:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I reviewed your participation back in March, in which attempts to make the article NPOV were characterized as "pro-KR propaganda/apologism and related nonsense", and as "attacks" by "trolls and ideologues." While I happen to agree with some of your arguments, I have to say that labelling users like that is unconstructive. Hanpuk's ideas weren't discussed, his character was attacked. Similar behavior occured in regards to Shorne.
I don't know what else to say besides I really wish you would be willing to discuss the matter (the matter of the content, nothing else). If not with Shorne, then with me. GuloGuloGulo 09:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
That discussion was confusing, spread out as it was over several articles (Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, History of Cambodia, etc.), but in the end a huge amount of material was presented buttressing the assertions in the article and refuting the deniers. I'm not of the inclination to go look it up all over again for you, but you can. The fact is, Shorne and Richardchilton Hanpuk Ruy Lopez's assertions are way out the historical mainstream, akin to Holocaust denial. And many of their analyses constitute original research. (And yes my words against Hanpuk became harsher, but remember that was like his eighth account that was attacking me relentlessly and his words were much worse.) VeryVerily 09:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I reviewed the talk pages of the articles you mentioned, and, besides handful of links presented by Stargoat cited to support death toll estimates, failed to uncover the "huge" amount of material refuting the "deniers." I don't believe that the assertations made are akin to "Holocaust denial", they seemed to me to be (sometimes overzealous) attempts to make the article NPOV. Again, your demonization of others as "deniers", akin to "Holocaust denial", do not help matters. I ask that you refrain from these labels. I don't believe anybody is doubting the terror and deaths caused by the Khmer Rouge, they are simply questioning under what circumstances and on what scale they occurred. GuloGuloGulo 09:37, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
The term deniers was not meant to be demonizing but merely to specify who I meant. However, akin to Holocaust deniers is I believe an accurate description of the credibility of these people's theories. Just glancing around, I noted hard data on Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_2. VeryVerily 10:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I did miss that. Though I'm sure the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project is a good resource, it seems to have been cited, again, solely for the estimations of the death toll. There are disputes other than the number killed under Pol Pot that, while likely addressed in that source, are not elaborated upon in the talk page.
Simple comparison to "Holocaust deniers" is not enough to refute someone's credibility. Holocaust deniers are certainly lunatics, but just saying so is not as effective as explaining why. GuloGuloGulo 10:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying anyone is a "lunatic" per se. But historical theories far outside the mainstream do not belong on Wikipedia. VeryVerily 10:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I suppose we should eliminate the Holocaust denial article then, seeing as how it's so far out of the mainstream. GuloGuloGulo 00:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
You're missing the point. We have an article about Holocaust denial, but we don't mention the "opposing view" in every article which mentions the Holocaust. VeryVerily 02:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note that there is a significant section about Holocaust denial and revisionism in the main Holocaust article. Why can there not be a similar section in the Khmer Rouge article? I'd like to say that I am very uncomfortable likening possible U.S. involvement in Cambodia to Holocaust denial, and am only doing so in an attempt to use a kind of maieutics in this conversation with you. GuloGuloGulo 04:07, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
It's not about U.S. involvement, it's about blaming the U.S. for all the problems the KR brought, including the deaths, famine, etc. A section on revisionism, if there really is a serious movement (as there is for Holocaust denial) rather than this being original research, might be appropriate, but rewriting the whole article to accommodate these views would not be appropriate. Putting "supposed" before every mention of "gas chambers" would not be kosher either, no? VeryVerily 04:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm shifting this over to the left again to avoid squishing.

I believe there is a "serious movement" that claims that many deaths during the Khmer Rouge's rule were caused by U.S. bombing of Cambodia (so-called "secret bombings".) A simple Google search of "'Secret Bombings' Cambodia" proves this. The online Encarta encyclopedia makes a passing mention of it [1]. This article [2] states that "The bombings were reported for the first time on May 9, 1969, in the New York Times." The Yale Cambodian Genocide Project that you yourself pointed out states "Cambodia was also slowly dragged into darkness when the Nixon administration conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the early 1970s" [3]. There is an extensive UC Berkley Thesis with good information that states "In the late 1960s to the early 1970s, while the United States was still in Vietnam, American B-52s began massive "secret" bombings to eliminate North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, Craig Etcheson writes,

"The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 that it had dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II. Between 1969 and 1973, 539,129 tons of high explosives rained down on Cambodia; that is more than one billion pounds. This is equivalent to some 15,400 pounds of explosives for every square mile of Cambodian territory. Considering that probably less than 25 percent of the total area of Cambodia was bombed at one time or another, the actual explosive force per area would be at least four times this level."

At the very least, I think this proves that the other editors were not doing original research and that this is a "serious movement." GuloGuloGulo 05:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The existence of the bombing campaign is not in doubt. But they were hitting targets, not targetting civilians. There is nothing in here about the phantom 600,000 people killed with aerial bombing (!), nor claiming the deaths imputed to the KR were actually wholly due to the bombing of a corner of Cambodia which had been dragged into the war. VeryVerily 06:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reviewing the differences between your version of the article and opposing versions, I found nothing suggesting "the deaths imputed to the KR were actually wholly due to the bombing." What was suggested is that the bombing campaigns resulted in much destruction, the deaths of many Cambodians, and the displacement of people from the countryside to the cities; how this affected the implementation of the KR's policies can be argued. The information below addresses the nature of the "targets" and the "phantom" (!!) 600,000 people killed.
From an International Committee of the Red Cross report: "While Phnom Penh fought the increasingly strong Khmer Rouge, the United States Ñ as part of its strategy in the Vietnam war Ñ dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia, destroying much of the country and driving half the population into the cities as displaced persons." [4]
The following was found on a website by The International Campaign against Impunity (ICAI), which is "is committed to support victims of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and torture in their fight against impunity." The document was not authored by the ICAI, but is "Reprinted with permission of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. Originally published as Nicole Barrett, Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos. The document has extensive citations and is well-documented. I highly recommend that you check it out: [5] Please excuse my excessive quoting.
"While there were several incidents of U.S. attacks in Cambodia prior to 1969, the bombing operations were formalized in 1969. In a fourteen month period, March 1969 to May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 B-52 raids against suspected Communist bases inside the Cambodian border. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor to U.S. President Richard Nixon, asserted before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1973 that areas bombed were Òunpopulated.Ó However, a memorandum written for the Secretary of Defense and sent to the White House by the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicates that ÒBreakfastÓ (Base Area 35) was home to approximately 1,640 Cambodian civilians, ÒLunchÓ (Base Area 609) was populated by 198 Cambodian civilians, ÒSnackÓ (Base Area 351) had approximately 383 civilians, ÒDinnerÓ (Base Area 352) was home to approximately 770 civilians, and ÒDessertÓ (Base Area 350) was inhabited by approximately 120 Cambodian peasants. The Joint Chiefs of Staff knew that the raids could not occur without endangering these Cambodians (Òsome Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operationÓ) and acknowledged that Òthe surprise effect of attacks could tend to increase casualties.
"The Finnish Kampuchea Inquiry Commission estimates that, out of a total population of over seven million, six hundred thousand Cambodians died and over two million civilians became refugees as a result of the United StatesÕ indiscriminate carpet bombing of towns, villages, jungle, and countryside from 1969 through April 1973. These estimates are modest compared to other sources... Historian Ben Kiernan interviewed a number of Cambodian refugees about the U.S. bombing. A peasant named Thuon Cheng remembered the bombing of his village, Banteay Chrey in northern Kampang Cham Province, where no communist troops had ever been stationed: 'In 1973 the Vietnamese stopped coming; in the same year, the village had to endure three months of intense bombardment by American B-52 planes. Bombs fell on Banteay Chrey three to six times per day, killing over one thousand people, or nearly a third of the village population, in three months.'
"Hong Var, resident of Sla in Takeo Province, one of the more heavily bombed areas, testified: 'The peasants frequently told in detail about their horrifying experiences . . . when Sla was a target of U.S. and Lon Nol bombers. They told how they had to dig trenches, and be prepared at any time to run from the fields, put out cooking fires, and so on.
"Over one hundred protests were filed by Cambodia with the United Nations from July 30, 1968 to March 9, 1970, the 27-month period preceding the March 18, 1970 overthrow of Prince SihanoukÕs government... These communications complained of acts of aggression including attacks on villages, peasants working in their fields, and fishermen in Cambodian territorial waters.38 Large numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as widespread destruction of livestock, crops, houses, and other property, resulted from these bombing attacks.
"United States Air Force maps of the targets for these attacks show that these bombs fell on densely populated, fertile areas. The U.S. Chief of Targets sitting in Thailand described the Cambodian bombing targets as Òalmost suburban in character with close-spaced villages throughout.Ó The U.S. bombing maps have been described as ÒhallucinatoryÓ as the bombs were targeted to fall on the most densely inhabited areas of the country. Witnesses in Cambodia during this period report that the U.S. bombing had destroyed the fabric of Cambodian society."
There's also Chomsky's 400-page book After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the reconstruction of imperial ideology, which I have specifically avoided up to now so as not to be subjected to accusations of choosing a supposedly unreliable source. No, I have cited more mainstream (read: right-wing) sources, including a book produced for the US government.
Hell, even the New York Stock Exchange went into a bit of a tailspin in 1970 or so when word of the "wider war" began to leak. I don't see how anyone can pretend that these bombings never happened. Shorne 08:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Why are you fabricating accusations of personal attacks? I have not done so. Stargoat 20:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is in regards to my request that Stargoat follow Wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. The following quotes him from the Khmer Rouge talk page.
"To remove... it is also indicative of a racist nature of the people attempting to remove it" (emphasis mine). This is the long way of saying "those who think it should be removed are racist." Likewise with: "To remove any of this... would be morally identical to being a holocaust denier." Thinly veiled personal attacks are still personal attacks. GuloGuloGulo 21:19, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Continued here: User_talk:Stargoat#Recent_comments_on_KR_talk_page

[edit] Iraq

Can we refer to the activities of the multinational force (Iraq) as anything other than an "occupation force" ? I mean, is there any possible change in Iraq's government that would alter the status of these forces from that of "occupiers" into allies of a new regime legitimately having Iraqi sovereignty? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of other ways to the refer to the post-invasion military presence in Iraq, "occupation" is simply the most accurate and concise. Again, I want to make clear that when the occupation ended/will end is a separate issue. There certainly is a "change in Iraq's government that would alter the status of these forces from that of 'occupiers'"; different viewpoints of when exactly that time was/is should be fairly represented in the article about the occupation.
My point is, even after an internationally observed democratic election, after which all foreign military forces withdraw from Iraq, there should still be an article about the occupation of Iraq; surely you agree that there was a period of time after the invasion in which there was a "military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory." That that period of time might be over is not a good reason to change the title of the article. For example, the invasion of Iraq is not still happening, but there is still an article about the invasion. GuloGuloGulo 19:14, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
One side point: I doubt that any of the Coalition nations have plans to withdraw troops from Iraq after the election. The US (at least) plans to stay as long as necessary to protect Iraqi sovereignty from overthrow by anti-democratic forces (like al Sadr and his buddies in Fallujah). But if Kerry wins, all bets are off, of course. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Laws of War

Redirecting Laws of War to International Humanitarian Law is entirely inappropriate. There is overlap in the subjects but they are not the same thing. The Laws of War have a long and complex history and cover more than the modern modern concept of IHT. -- Cecropia | explains it all ¨ 01:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the Laws of War and I could not agree more with Cecropia (although if you look at the Talk page we disagree on many things). Next time you want to do this you ought to discuss it first on the talk page.

As a tip if you want to start to get you page into some sort of shape you must understand the difference between an enemy civilian and belligerent living in enemy defended territory and a POW or civilian of a hostile power now protected persons in occupied territory.

For example the section "Basic rules" of IHL num 4 is just wrong. If A enemy civilian merchant ship is carrying war supplies for an enemy, then it is a civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. So Its back to the drawing board with that one.Philip Baird Shearer 01:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Continued here: Talk:International_Humanitarian_Law

[edit] Culture of Greece

You voted for Culture of Greece, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

[edit] U.S. embargo against Cuba

You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

[edit] Collaboration of the Week

Your vote for African art has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.

[edit] The crazy one

Hello, I am the crazy one who came up with the voting system at the bottom of Talk:Hubbert Peak, but I would like you to know, I have created a project page, which will eventually be renamed. That said, I invite you and others to join the project and begin editing the page, I started the page, but there has to be active discussion about the contents There still are the talk pages, to-do list, review board pages, and forums to set up. I invite you to come along and help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations. Ignore the inuse sign, thats just a greeting. --[[User:Ctrl build|User:Ctrl_buildtalk ]] 19:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) <--Have to fix this.

[edit] Iraq

Gulo, I see you were involved some months ago in the discussion whether or not to change the name of Occupation of Iraq to Post-invasion Iraq, and I was wondering if you could describe a bit of the history of that for me. The talk archives seem to be very mixed up or have bits missing, and so far as I can tell, the decision to change the title in the end was made by two editors alone with asking for outside comment. If you have the time, could you give me a brief summary of the issues and whether the name change had support? Best, SlimVirgin 23:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gulo, just to let you know that I restored the chronological archive and the missing material, so that editors can look through the name-change discussion for themselves. Best, SlimVirgin 02:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development

Have you added this project page to your watchlist? That is the first step. Thanks for your interest and help. Tom Haws 05:16, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AID project

On this week's Article Improvement Drive voting, an article you supported was selected. This week we focus on improving Antigua and Barbuda and Criticisms of War on Terrorism to featured article status. Hope you can help. 119 01:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development

Could I get you to chime in on the poll here? I appreciate it. It represents a sticky ongoing question. Tom Haws 06:39, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject International law

If you have a minute, please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law. We're getting things off the ground, hoping to eventually build a community of contributors interested in international law. Yeu Ninje 04:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal & future selected articles

Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/l/User_talk%7EGuloGuloGulo_7de8.html"