Talk:Modern Cambodia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What a load of nonsense

This article is complete and utter nonsense. Is it too much to ask that we have some articles on this wikipedia that aren't from a heavily pro-Khmer Rouge POV? It's not just this article, there are a few KR POV articles on Wikipedia. Could people try to be a bit less biased in favour of genocidal mass murderers? Just because the USA, China, Thailand and the United Nations supported the Khmer Rouge, doesn't mean we can't try and tell the truth about what happened rather than just repeating their lies. Carl Kenner 18:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how this article is pro-khmer. Their repression in the elections is cited, as well as the fact that it was never disarmed or demobilised. they also mention that the UN's main goal was to prevent the Khmer Rouge of regaining power. So could you please clarify? - Betina 21:57 May 7th 2001 (GMT -2)

I would have to agree; I've read a lot of independent material and it seems to me that the subject matter is fairly objective. Also the title says, with its bare face sticking out, '1979-present'. The Vietnamese invasion of 1978-9 specifically ENDED the Khmer Rouge as the 'regime', so... how is Mr. Kenner's objection relevant anyway? As 'Betina' stated, the main goal of the UN was to facilitate the withdrawl of Vietnamese forces and to prevent the Khmer Rouge (as originally consituted, at least) from regaining power. - Pat Struthers (8/24/06)

I usually, dislike "me too" posts on talk pages, but in this case, I have to agree with Pat and Betina. This article, doesn't seem to be "Pro-Khmer Rouge" at all (and I don't think there are many people around that are more "anti-Khmer Rouge" than me). Kenner is right, though, in his assertion that there a couple other articles that were written by a certain pro-Khmer Rouge, pro-Marxist editor last year (he seems to have moved on, though). This article is, however, problematic in several areas. It is completely un-referenced, is repleat with what looks like original research (probably due to the lack of cited sources), and could stand a thorough copyediting. Any takers?--WilliamThweatt 22:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

The article History of Cambodia (1979-present) already contains information from the article Peoples's Republic. Thus, Peoples's Republic is redundent. In addition, the name of the article can be misleading because many countries (especially Communist) uses People's Repulic as part of their (formal) name. --Hurricane111 17:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I didn't realise it was a link to a generic definition of People's Republic and not specific to the PRK regime.

[edit] rename this pageto 'Modern Cambodia' due to addition/separation of PRK from more recent history

my account is too recent, can't do the move by myself; thanks NIRVn 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)