Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Text moved frrom Votes to deletion I think this can be useful.

Khmer Rouges likely just a misspelling, nothing points to it and it simply redirects to the correctly spelled Khmer Rouge -- User:Maury Markowitz

I don't think this will hurt. And it might catch some links from the internet. -- JeLuF 10:48 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

This is correct in French. "Le parti Khmer Rouge" for the parti or movement vs. "les Kmher Rouges" for the people who support "Khmer Rouge". Khmer does'nt need a s because it's non-French. I wonder if "Khmer Rouge" was corrected because "les Kmher Rouges" is much more commonly used in French. A rapid search on Google saw that "Khmer Rouge" is more common in english but I've found some occurences for "Khmer Rouges" in english text. Maybe some precision should be added in the main article. Ericd

Is "genocide" the most suitable word to describe what happened? I can't think of a better word, but genocide doesn't seem quite right. The dictionary says this:

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

It just may be possible that the stationing of American service personnel in Cambodia near the DMZ and performing military action to prevent the Vietcong from circumventing the DMZ with no regard for civilian Cambodians may have had something to do with Pol Pot's anger since this had been going on since at least 1966. This is first hand information and it is no doubt buried at the highest level of security.

Your "first hand information" is self-contradictory: Pol Pot (an intellectual) shows no regard for Cambodian civilians as an angry reaction to American soldiers showing no regard for these same citizens? What could be "buried at the highest level of security" that could bring logic to this? -JCB 1/4/2004

Genocide fits. The policy was elimination of intellectuals - scientists, teachers and anyone who might have been motivated to resist. A little unusual to select the most educated part of the population for death but humans can come up with almoist any idea given enough time. Jamesday 15:06, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to be very patient and openminded about alternative viewpoints to traditional American stances, but if we are going to allow Hector to whitewash the Khmer Rouge (or whatever we call it--the name isn't important to me) to the point that this article does not reflect Pol Pot's use of this party to kill hundreds of thousands of Cambodians, I may lose my temper, and I have tried a very long time to avoid that on Wikipedia. There had better be either a lot of excellent sources explaining why I imagined the Cambodian genocide, or some support for keeping this page honest. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Folks, here's my proposal: actually the edits you are battling over are not mutually exclusive so I wonder why you are reverting back in forth instead of editing things together. There seems to be one sentence in dispute, which is the reason for evacuation of Phnom Penh. I'm going to weave them together and hope you will provide constructive feedback in the article. I've been to Cambodia, and have friends who work in the media, schools and government there, and they do not much fondness for the CPK of that era. So any history of the CPK should reflect this truth, heard from both folks inside the country and the outside community. Fuzheado 00:26, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK - I tried to merge versions. I hope that helps. Note also that the common name of this subject is Khmer Rouge, so this page should be at Khmer Rouge to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 00:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Mav, good job. I've also tried to take out some hemming-hawing in the language, which makes it more direct. Fuzheado 00:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Numbers change

Some of the changes here could be justified (ie. learning from Stalin?) but the number being lowered to 50,000 cannot be seriously considered. The estimate came from the CIA in 1980, but it was the estimated number of executions not actual deaths caused by the CPK/Khmer Rouge altogether, and nearly every NGO or independent investigation has called the CIA numbers "ridiculously" low. No one ever reasonably quotes a number less than a few hundred thousand. Remember, 50,000 is much less than what fits inside a soccer/football stadium. Fuzheado 01:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The final indignity of POV is to not even let a group name itself. We should change the African-American entry to niggers since that name was common usage (by white Americans, the only group on the planet whose opinion matters) to refer to a certain group of people. The CPK called itself the CPK, Khmer Rouge is just what the American corporate press called the CPK (just like they called the NLF in Vietnam the Viet Cong, or call the PCP in Peru, Shining Path). Is this some kind of Judeo-Christian values thing, like Adam being the one to have the power to name all the beasts of the air, fish of the sea and that sort of thing? -- Richardchilton 06:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Adam is neither a Jew nor a Christian. It is Wikipedia policy to call things by their most commonly used name in English. There is no doubt that in this case that is Khmer Rouge. Of course that was not the official name of the organisation, and that should be noted in the opening paragraph. My reason for reverting your edits, however, had nothing to do with nomenclature. It had to do with you deleting the sentence about the KR regime killing a million people in four years, which is by far the most important thing to say about them. Adam 07:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. We've already gone over this though. --mav
I was making a comparison to the Adam in Genesis where...well, never mind that, if you look at the Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) , you will see that you should *use the name the group calls itself*. Regarding the number of people killed in the first paragraph, this is incredibly ridiculous, if anyone editted the USA page and said "the US killed millions of Indians, black slaves and people in it's foreign imperialism" in it's first paragraph, it would be considered not NPOV, however it can be put here. Also, the CIA said 50,000 people were killed. Richardchilton 10:13, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Was it you who changed that page to say that just before you posted, a change which was reversed once it was noticed? Jamesday 15:15, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Richardchilton, as I mentioned before, that is not what the CIA said. The CIA claimed there were 50,000 executions, which is different than people dying under their rule. However, even the 50,000 executions is way too low according to almost every organization that studies these things. Fuzheado 23:56, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I really don't care whether this article is called KR or CPK or anything else. I do care that it is factually accurate and not yet another Wikipedia Stalinist whitewash. That the KR killed at least a million people, either directly by execution or by policies (such as forcible emptying of hospitals) which were bound to kill people is an exhaustively well-documented fact, not just rhetoric, so Richard's comparison with the alleged crimes of US imperialism is fatuous. I do not think that what the KR did should be called "genocide," because it wan't their intention to exterminate the Cambodian people. The newly-coined term democide is more useful here, although "mass murder" is ethically more honest. Adam 00:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


---

wow richardchilton you really are a dumbass. i wish there was a name for people like you so we could make a wikipedia entry about it.

--


this article is rather dry. it leaves out the flavor of genocide, making it like reading the box of cereal ingredients. (corn, wheat, 1,000,000 dead, communism, mono and diglycerides)

at the very least you could talk about how even the officials within the khmer were not safe from their own government, and were executed as readily as the people. at least some details of their tactics of requesting 'public confessions' then having those confessed killed later. how about the widespread use of children as executioners, generals, torturers, etc? how about some links to those specific places (like that abandoned school house i cant remember the name) where they killed people all the time?

how about a mention of the massive records they kept about every dead person?

I do not see why "They are generally said to have been responsible for the deaths of between 900,000 and 2 million people during their rule." is so high up in the article. We don't have this so prominently for the Democratic Party of the US or for the Republican party and so forth. And PLEASE don't give me some bullshit line like "Duh...so why don't you put it there, this is the Khmer Rouge page". Because we all known it would be deleted in two seconds as POV, but some people seem to have problems perceiving this when corporate media has been painting these people as evil, bloodthirsty, "crazy" (like the Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Qadaffi etc. are crazy), slanty-eyed communist gooks for years (that is until 1979, when they started fighting Vietnamese communists, who were of course, the REAL bad guys, right?). Maveric is apparently the one who originally stuck this thing up there and felt it needed to be in a prominent place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=543185&oldid=543183

I disagree, I am removing it from the top of the article, it should be left in the paragraph where this is discussed.

And what does "have been responsible" mean? What does that mean? If some peasant fled their farm because the US Air Force was bombing in 1974 with their two kids, and when the CPK took over they had already been in Phnom Penh for months, all underfed, and one of the children died a week after the change of guard, is the CPK "responsible" for this? Cambodia was receiving international food aid right up until the CPK took over - were the cutting off of humanitarian aid responsible for the effect in that change of policy?

Now lets get to that paragraph

"During that time, large segments of the population were targeted for elimination, including intellectuals, anyone connected with the previous regime, ethnic Vietnamese or those suspected of having sympathies with them. The exact number of deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime is difficult to pinpoint. Depending on the source a reported 15% to 40% of the population died between 1975 and 1979 (500,000 to 2,000,000 people). A figure of about 1 million is widely accepted."

This has all sorts of problems. First of all that the segments were "large" is disputed. And as far as "targeted" according to what source? I would like to see a reference to who said there was targeting. Obviously, some people in the former regime were executed, but I'd like a reference to this idea of widespread targeting. And then of course, I'd add if anyone would dispute this afterwards.

Now - "Depending on the source a reported 15% to 40% of the population died between 1975 and 1979 (500,000 to 2,000,000 people). A figure of about 1 million is widely accepted." I have a problem with this. I do not have a problem with saying that some people clain 2 million people were killed and whatnot, I do have a problem with the absolutely ridiculous number of 2 million being allowed as an upper range, yet it appears from what I've read here that anyone lowering the other number is reverted. I also disagree that 1 million is widely accepted. By who? The US government doesn't accept that number.

I see a lot of sloppy, unsourced stuff here. Then anyone who wants to edit it is accused of "whitewashing" these numbers that seem to have been pulled out of a hat. Someone put in 2 million here - where did "3 million" go, the number that Maveric (the one who put the number up prominently at the top) go? What happened to those million theoretical people?

Also, the article talks about executions and then goes on to say "The exact number of deaths during the Khmer Rouge regime is difficult to pinpoint". Now number of deaths (due to old age, cancer, whatever) is different than executions, but coming in the sentence right after talk about executions, it implies these people were executed like the top people in the former regime were. So this will have to be cleared up.

This is a good source for information on the Khmer Rouge as is the book "The Political Economy of Human Rights" http://www.zmag.org/forums/chomcambodforum.htm

Please reference things people say instead of pulling stuff out of a hat, throwing it up there and then accusing anyone who touches it of "whitewashing" the unreferenced truth, which came from divine osmosis or something I suppose. Anyhow, I'm *guessing* that the two million figure is from Ponchaud, so I will note that in the article, if whoever put it in has other references, feel welcome to change it, I'm going to have to do guesswork on where these unreferenced numbers and claims came from originally. Please use references and hash this out in discussion instead of being an idiot who just reverts everything after people are trying to work together to make a referenced, NPOV article. -- Hanpuk 17:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


After all my work, discussion here, referencing of the big number people's claims and whatnot, what happens? The Anome just reverts everything I do, no discussion, and the exposition of "Reverted edits by Hanpuk to last version by 195.188.152.10". Wikipedia is full of commissars who demand not only that some party line be kept to, but a party line be kept to with no discussion, no attempts at discussion or trying to reach NPOV, just revert what you don't like to see, hope for an edit war and then the page to get locked on a version you agree with. And then throw mud on the other person and accuse them of being some political crazy (for perhaps wanting there to be at least some form of comment, or reason, or even perhaps discussion before simply reverting everything one does not find pleasant). -- Hanpuk 17:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Hello Hanpuk. I note that you have written a long apologia for the Khmer Rouge here. However, that is not the same thing as achieving consensus. The generally accepted opinion about the KR is that they were mass-murderers who also mismanaged their country into ruin. This appears to be the #1 siginificant fact about them, and so belongs at the top of their article, much like references to WW II and the Holocaust belong at the top of the article about the Nazis, or references to the gulag and the purges belong at the top of an article about Stalin. Feel free to give better estimates. Feel free to give cites. Don't whitewash the KR by deleting this sentence. I'll restore the para, citing it as an opinion, how's that. -- The Anome 17:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"The generally accepted opinion" - is this an encyclopedia or is this the Capital Gang? I thought facts were supposed to be here, not "opinions". Anyhow, I don't think this deserves prominent mention, but I'll concede and let this discussion be at the top of the page. I moved the entire discussion of Cambodian demographics and executions to the top of the page. I also notice how people like to put demographic information near executions, trying to imply the CPK executed 3 million people, I am going to make sure this ambiguity does not exist, and for it to be clear how many died prior to the CPK taking power, how many people died by execution as welll as of malnourishment (which was happening on a great scale PRIOR to the CPK taking power and which in my opinion the CPK did a lot to relieve), how many people died of the Vietnamese invasion, how many died of natural causes like old age or cancer and whatnot. At least you cited who said what according to what most people know. I know of what people say of Ponchaud's numbers (especially important is that some of his numbers refer to the period PRIOR to the CPK taking power, never mind that the post-CPK figures of his are disputed and was denied by the US embassy at the time), I will look at the other ones as well. I do not mind what numbers people put up as long as they are referenced and people can point out aspects such as that part of Ponchaud's numbers were of the period prior to the CPK takeover. You can write whatever you want on the page as long as it is referenced to something. -- Hanpuk 18:14, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

New text

This version clearly needs a lot of work. The new section does contain a lot of new information that might be valuable, but it is clear "Hanpuk" (yeah, right) is also putting in pro-KR propaganda/apologism and related nonsense (the usual "corporate" press). The 50,000 figure, repeatedly debunked here, has returned. Can anyone take on the Herculean task of working through this? There's too much information for me to want to just erase wholesale, but it's too mixed up with bad info to keep as is. -- VV 22:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as the first sentence, what does "considered responsible for" mean? Also the two million number is RIDICULOUS, even the original source of the number says it does NOT refer to the period the CPK was in charge. Ponchaud says 800,000 were killed PRIOR to the CPK takeover, and 1,600,000 were killed afterwards. The US Embassy at the time denied that 1,600,000 had been killed by the CPK and said the numebr was too high, but let's put that aside for now. Ponchaud's number was mentioned in a New York Review of Books review and then was picked up by the New York Times, Time, Newsweek and so forth and so on. What was quite often left out is that Ponchaud only blamed 1.6 million on the CPK after the 1975 takeover and 800,000 of the 2 million referred to were PRIOR to 1975, BEFORE the CPK took over. But this caveat for 800,000 of the claimed 1.6 million was often left out. Anyhow now the 2 million number is around everywhere, sans this caveat.
Being as this totally ridiculous number (2 million, not 1.6 million, according to Ponchaud, and I dispute the 1.6 million, but at least it can be said "Ponchaud said 1.6 million") can be put at the top, I'm not sure why the good old CIA's 1980 estimate of as little as 50,000 executions can not be put at the top - and the CPK said much of that was due to the Vietnamese invasion where the CPK was killing Vietnamese agents in Cambodia.
As far as the lower one I'll leave it, I'll put a sentence after it saying some people give a lower, sometimes much lower, estimate.
I don't mind arguments going up as long as they're sourced and so forth. "Ponchaud said 2 million died" can go up, and if the caveat is not there, I would add "800,000 being attributed to the former regime's rule by Ponchaud, 1.6, attributed by Ponchaud, to the CPK's rule". Anyhow, I myself have to look into some things such as the phrase "year zero" and see where it comes from, if the CPK used it or if it was invented by the Western press or first estate (I think François Ponchaud was a French priest, sacre bleu). Anyhow, as long as things are sourced and such we can probably come to an amenable agreement I think. -- Hanpuk 06:21, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the Anome's last edit. He added a section "Year Zero" and "How many died under the rule of the Khmer Rouge?" I don't know how I feel about that, but I left it, I have to read more about the Year Zero metaphor.

Even the US State Department refers to the "Khmer Rouge" as the CPK so I am changing it to "How many died under the rule of the CPK?"...I'm changing a few KR's to CPK's.

Then there's the sentence "This policy, known as 'year zero', soon turned into a reign of terror, and resulted in the deaths of a large number of Cambodians through executions and starvation." Going through that sentence, I think it needs modifiers like "some say" instead of it being stated as a fact. I mean, there are some facts - the CPK *did* execute people. But were they "large numbers" of people? And what is a large number of people. Anyhow, I am going to add qualifiers like "some say" and the like.

I'll leave this part in about starvation, but are you saying due to the CPK large number of people died of starvation? I'm not sure if that view is commonly held, even on the right. Most people say the CPK didn't care about the hardship of the migrations, and executed people. I can't think of many people, even on the right, who blame the CPK for excessive starvation. It's a topic they like to avoid - executions can be blamed solely on the CPK, but starvation people might start asking why humanitarian aid was cut off and what effect US bombing had on Cambodia's agriculture, and how many people were dying of starvation prior to the CPK. There are plenty of sources on the right (and "liberals") on CPK executions, I'd be curious what sources blame the CPK for excessive starvation. I expanded the sentence there where I had said that the CPK claimed it was doing there thing to try to avoid famine. -- Hanpuk 06:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Come on, Hanpuk, from what you are saying in this discussion, I guest you must be a Cambodian, correct? I know a lot of Cambodians, and according to their opinion. I can make it clear that 100% (and I mean 100%, all of them) of Cambodians who were in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge talk of the Vietnamese as their saviour, their liberators, what the Vietnamese force did wrong was that they overstayed in Cambodia until 1989. On the other hand, Cambodians who were living overseas, or teenagers, generally, people who did not suffer under the Khmer Rouge often think of the Vietnamese as invader who try to take over Cambodia and blame all of the dead of the Cambodian upon the Vietnamese force. I guess that is because of what a lot of Cambodian is learning from school that "Vietnameses only want to invade Cambodia", "Vietnam is the biggest enemy of Cambodia". Still don't believe me? OK, then can you quote any book written by Khmer Rouge victims which said the Vietnamese invade Cambodia to kill them? Get over it and stop blaming others for what your country men did to their own people and start thinking, why did the Vietnamese risked a war with the Chinese (and it did indeed happened)? You think the Vietnamese come to Cambodia to slaughter their own ethnic people living in Cambodia? You think the Vietnamese would be crazy enough to invade Cambodia to oust a communist regime which could be one of their 2 alliances in South East Asia? You think the Vietnamese would just let Pol Pot keep Phu Quoc island off the southern coast of Vietnam and don't even try to take it back? lt2hieu2004