Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 5

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.

Contents

Some sources on the Khmer Rouge and the United States

I have carried these forward from the archives. Neither Stargoat nor anyone else in the revert-and-propagandise camp ever replied to them. Shorne 22:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • [1]. Establishes population at roughly 6.5 million in 1970. This supports my claim #1 about the population. According to the census of 1981, the population was 6.3 million. I defy anyone to tell me how three million people were killed by 1979 when the population was 6.3 million two years later. Note also the useful reference to Kimmo Kiljunen, ed., Kampuchea: Decade of the genocide—report of a Finnish inquiry commission (London, 1984), which says that total deaths during the Khmer Rouge's rule were at most 1 million. This is consistent with the Khmer Rouge's own estimate, for which see below.
  • [2]. At the time of the Khmer Rouge's rise to power in 1975, Phnom Penh's population, "numbering 2.5 million people, included as many as 1.5 million wartime refugees living with relatives or in shantytowns around the urban center". More Cambodian refugees from the countryside lived in other cities. This defends my claim #3 of 2 million rural refugees in the cities. Moreover, "[a]side from the alleged threat of United States air strikes, the Khmer Rouge justified the evacuations [of the cities] in terms of the impossibility of transporting sufficient food to feed an urban population of between 2 and 3 million people." This supports my claim #5. (Yes, there were other reasons for the evacuation, some of which are mentioned in this source. But it is absurd to deny that Cambodia had enough food and the means to get it to the cities when so much of the infrastructure had been destroyed.)
  • [3]. This article cites multiple estimates of total deaths during the period 1975–1979. The widely touted figure of three million comes from the PRK, the puppet régime installed by the invading Vietnamese in 1979. Some Catholic cleric claims 2.3 million. Amnesty International (1.4 million), the US Department of State (1.2 million), and (surprise!) the Khmer Rouge (0.8–1.2 million) roughly agree. In addition, "[a]s is evident from the accounts of refugees, the greatest causes of death were hunger, disease, and exposure. Many city people could not survive the rigors of life in the countryside, the forced marches, and the hard physical labor. People died from the bites of venomous snakes, drowned in flooded areas during the rainy season, and were killed by wild beasts in jungle areas. Many fell victim to malaria. Others died in the fighting between Vietnam and Cambodia in 1978 and in 1979. Nonetheless, executions accounted for hundreds of thousands of victims and perhaps for as many as 1 million." Note that "perhaps … as many as 1 million" is only possible if we embrace the estimate of the Vietnamese invaders, for there is no space for a million executions in (to take the highest of the consistent estimates) 1.4 million total deaths if "the greatest causes" were hunger, disease, exposure, snakes, beasts, floods, and warfare.
  • [4]. Quote: "On April 29, 1970, South Vietnamese and United States units unleashed a multi-pronged offensive into Cambodia to destroy the Central Office for South Vietnam (COSVN), the headquarters for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong combat operations in South Vietnam." Proof that it was the US and its South Vietnamese puppet, not North Vietnam, that invaded Cambodia. Furthermore, "United States bombing of enemy troop dispositions in Cambodia—particularly in the summer of 1973, when intense aerial bombardment (known as Arclight) was used to halt a Khmer Rouge assault on Phnom Penh—bought time for the Lon Nol government, but did not stem the momentum of the communist forces. United States official documents give a figure of 79,959 sorties by B-52 and F-111 aircraft over the country, during which a total of 539,129 tons of ordnance were dropped, about 350 percent of the tonnage (153,000 tons) dropped on Japan during World War II. Many of the bombs that fell in Cambodia struck relatively uninhabited mountain or forest regions; however, as declassified United States Air Force maps show, others fell over some of the most densely inhabited areas of the country, such as Siemreab Province, Kampong Chhnang Province, and the countryside around Phnom Penh. Deaths from the bombing are extremely difficult to estimate, and figures range from a low of 30,000 to a high of 500,000. Whatever the real extent of the casualties, the Arclight missions over Cambodia, which were halted in August 15, 1973, by the United States Congress, delivered shattering blows to the structure of life in many of the country's villages, and, according to some critics, drove the Cambodian people into the arms of the Khmer Rouge." Have a look at a map and tell me whether the areas cited are "10 miles from Vietnam". Also tell me how four and a half times the tonnage of bombs dropped on Japan during World War II can be denied by anyone with a yoctogramme of integrity. And tell me how B-52s, specifically cited in the preceding, "cannot do the kind of damage [I am] talking about".
  • [5]. Corroborates much of the above and also states that "[t]he number of U.S.-caused deaths in the first phase [of the "genocide" of the 1970s] is comparable to, or greater than, CIA and other serious estimates of Pol Pot killings by execution (50,000–400,000)". Now we're cutting to the chase. First, the US is indeed responsible for more killings than Pol Pot's régime. Second, executions are estimated by the CIA itself at no more than 400,000. In addition, the Finnish commission that I mentioned above found that "the U.S. was the genocidist" from 1969 to 1975. "Furthermore, when the Khmer Rouge took over in April 1975, the country was shattered, starvation and disease were already rampant—8,000 people a day were dying in Phnom Penh alone—and these residual effects of phase one [when the US was the genocidist] were certain to take a toll in the years to follow. In short, focusing solely on Pol Pot and making the U.S. an innocent bystander in the Cambodian genocide requires well-constructed blinders." (Emphasis mine.)
  • Ibid.: After the Vietnamese ousted the Khmer Rouge, "Pol Pot's forces found a safe haven in Thailand, a U.S. client state, and for the next 15 years or more were aided and protected there by Thai, Chinese, British, and U.S. authorities." Continued: "It is obvious that … the U.S. sponsorship of a Cambodia Documentation Center to assemble evidence solely on Pol Pot's crimes … [is] dishonest, hypocritical, and problematic." Continued: In the US, "the mainstream media handle[d] the problem of [the US's rôle in the genocide] by a virtually complete blackout". Continued: "Henry Kissinger … was … responsible for scores of thousands of deaths [in Cambodia]".

That will do for now.

I hope the case is clear. One side quotes miscellaneous death counts that don't even match and that have no context to explain them; the other has extensive evidence of death counts and a hell of a lot more besides. Shorne 22:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

consensus

With the Wikipedia arbitrators now more hands on, perhaps we can finally get to a point where this page can resemble an encyclopedia article and not an article from the John Birch Society's New American.

This article is riddled with false notions, POV and so forth. If I've made large changes its because so much of this article is not facts but a just a POV rant. In the midst of the long POV rant, when something vaguely looking like a fact appears, it is usually wrong.

I should point to a group of sentences in a paragraph I am leaving in:

"The exact number of people who died as a result of the Khmer Rouge's policies is debated. The regime which succeeded the Khmer Rouge claimed that 3.3 million had died. The CIA estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were executed by the Khmer Rouge, but executions represented only a minority of the death toll, which mostly came from starvation. Three sources, United States Department of State, Amnesty International and the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, give estimates of the total death toll as 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively. R. J. Rummel gives a figure of 2 million."

These are facts! Someone said Amnesty International put the death toll at 1.4 million. This remains in, I have not verified it, but I have no reason to doubt it. If you know of information about the CPK of a negative (or positive) nature, please present it as facts, preferably with some source instead of some POV rant strewn with "facts" that are incorrect. The above sentences make the CPK look bad, but they are NPOV, sourced and factual. I have no problem with them! Most of this article is rot, but the above is not, so I left it.

These issues have been discussed to death, but let's go back to them:

1) Khmer Rouge is not the name of the organization, that name is a slur given to them by their enemy. Of course, it is well known, so should be mentioned, as should the name of their party, the Communist Party of Kampuchea

This has been done previously. I will do so again.
The Khmer Rouge is the commonly name given to the regime. For example, the name of the United States is actually the United States of America, but for convience of locating the topic, the name is given as United States. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Khmer Rouge" is an insulting name imposed by French colonialists and the US government. Your analogy has no value whatsoever. The CPK never used "Khmer Rouge" as a short form of its name. In French, the name is Parti communiste du Cambodge (or Parti communiste cambodgien; at one point Parti populaire cambodgien). Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, god forbid that pack of bloodthirsty maniacs should have to suffer an INSULT!

2) We should come to a consensus over who was to blame in any deaths, how they died and how many were there in Cambodia before mentioning it in the opening. Who was to blame? The US air force bombardment of Cambodia? The Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia? How did people die? Execution? Starvation because during the civil war farmers fled to the cities and crops were not growing (and international food aid was cut off when the CPK took over)? How many died? This should be spelled out instead of all jumbled together

We should come to a concensus. And before any edits should be made in this controversial article, the should be discussed here first. Deletions of material should not be done unless there is overwhelming evidence saying otherwise. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ruy Lopez and I have been trying for months to reach a consensus (note spelling). He and I are just about the only ones to make any serious efforts in this direction. (There was a mediator who contributed at one point. I can't think of anyone else.) If you're ready to talk facts, let's get started. It's high time. Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3) This is a minor point, but it says the CPK was aided by North Vietnam. Was it? Or was the CPK aiding North Vietnam? I've removed this, even though it is a minor point. If you have any examples of how North Vietnam aided Cambodia, please explain it. I should note that North Vietnam did not border Cambodia, "South Vietnam" did - so which Vietnamese are being talked about anyhow?

The initial members of the CPK were trained in North Vietnam. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4) I dispute the reading of the CPK's philosophy. Where did this come from? The CPK were much more practical it seems - they did manage to take over a country after all.

Dispute away. Anything specific? Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He asked for a reference. Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5) The CPK takeover is filled with inaccurate and misleading information. For example - the relocating of people from urban areas to farms. This was sending farmers back to farms they had fled during the war. It is made to sound nefarious. This stuff really needs to be sourced and spelled out, you can't just made a dozen accusations in a row without any sources and expect them to stand. I also sense POV - it says the CPK were determined to create their society "by force". Well, the US has an army, and policemen who maintain the society "by force". Every modern society is maintained by force, except perhaps some isolated primitive tribes. Mentioning this is POV.

The cities were emptied. The urban people who had been living there for generations were sent to the countryside, as well as those fleeing the coming of the Khmer Rouge. There are citations for the this on the page itself. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll look for this evidence. Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

6) I dispute that Khieu Samphan ever said 1 million were killed. Despite the quote not being sourced, I know the source, it was in a very small, obscure Italian Catholic magazine. And the presented number was by the interviewer. This is about as vague as you can get, people are left with the impression that Khieu came out and said one million died publically, which he did not, and I don't believe ever happened anyhow.

You're disputing first sources. Find a source that says he did not say that then. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, no, that is not how it works. You can't come along and claim that some pamphlet that someone handed you on the street corner said that Jesus is coming tomorrow, then call such rubbish a "first source" and demand proof to the contrary. Why would some dubious Italian Catholic rag of negligible circulation (a couple of hundred readers, maybe) be the only source to a first-hand report of that sort from Khieu? It doesn't make sense.
Imagine that some tiny left-wing publication in Rome said "Khieu told us that the number of people killed was between 50 and 70". Would you accept that as a legitimate "first source"? No? (Neither would I.) Then why do you buy some little Catholic newsletter's claim? Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

7) As the US executes dozens of people every year, Cambodia under the CPK executed people. Putting pictures of their faces on the page are as POV as putting the dead bodies on say the US Republican party page. Two pictures! Utterly ridiculous. This whole article is the worst mud-slinging on Wikipedia.

The Khmer Rouge was in power for a limited number of years. Those limited number of years were the scene of the worst auto-genocide in world history. The Khmer Rouge is defined by the slaughter it committed. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How does that pertain to what Ruy Lopez wrote? Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez 07:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to spell all that out Roy. But, you cannot delete something, even if you believe to be POV without replacing it with something. Fortunately, we can work on the talk page and try to come to some solution. Stargoat 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you're ready to talk seriously, with data and sources rather than received "truths" and "majority" opinions, I'm also ready, and I'm sure Ruy Lopez is. Shorne 16:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All excellent points. I have just a few comments to add:
1) I've been beaten up on lately at Communist Party of Peru and Abimael Guzmán for insisting that using the phony names favoured by the CIA (such as "Shining Path" for Communist Party of Peru and "Viet Cong" for National Liberation Front) is both rude and tendentious, for it puts the US government's POV ahead of the organisation's right to name itself.
5) The tired old thing about urban residents who were sent to the countryside (yes, they were people—about a third of the country's population—who had flooded the cities because the countryside was being bombed by the US) is calculated to appeal to the biases of Western readers, who are typically city-dwellers who know little about food production and cannot imagine themselves transplanting rice seedlings.
7) Even if those pictures were acceptable, we would know nothing about the people allegedly killed. Who are those people? Do they have names? stories? Something that looks like a page from a high-school yearbook is being sold as a list of innocent victims of the CPK. Maybe they are, but we cannot conclude that from the photo.
As for the US's executions, they go well beyond the dozens. That's just the number for which the US government accepts responsibility. Plenty of "accidental" killings by cops and prison wardens go unmentioned. There's also the matter of wars against other countries, which come to several million per decade. And that doesn't count CIA-backed murders done through a third country or even subtler deaths caused through violence waged in the economic realm.
I've written a great deal of facts, with citations, on this talk page (check the archives), and I intend to use them in this article. Shorne 08:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
is calculated to appeal to the biases of Western readers, who are typically city-dwellers who know little about food production and cannot imagine themselves transplanting rice seedlings. -- Is bias your fallback for every legitimate counterpoint to your apologia? And as usual you pretend to not be able to differentiate between death penalty executions for serious crimes, accidental killings, war dead, or Cold War rivalry, as compared to systematic elimination of all "counterrevolutionaries" (as the Khmer Rouge, and several other Communist regimes were dedicated to)Trey Stone 08:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Small change needed

Ruy Lopez, the article now reads "by the French name 'Communist Party of Kampuchea'". Please correct that. Shorne 08:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Stargoat's lie: "rv: undiscussed deletions. Please refer to talk page"

What, then, Stargoat? I don't see a damn thing by you on the talk page. I do see a couple of pages of text by Ruy Lopez and me in defence of his changes. Admit that you lied and that you reverted the article without even looking at the talk page.

Take note, too: I absolutely cannot work with anyone who has no integrity. No discussion is possible with a bald-faced liar. I've had enough of your nonsense. Shorne 15:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, this is another example of your disengenious behavior. You've removed all evidence of the extensive discussion and moved it to the archive. Stargoat 15:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First, it was Ruy Lopez who moved it. Second, he moved it before he posted his own comments above. Third, you came along later, so nothing you have written since you reverted his changes can be in the archive. Fourth, his discussion is here for all to see, so your claim of "undiscussed deletions" is true only in the sense that you haven't discussed shit. Shorne 15:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fifth, that's a pretty lousy spelling of disingenuous. Shorne 15:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sixth, I am still waiting for you to say what is wrong with Ruy Lopez's changes. Shorne 16:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why are you deliberately trying to provoke me by bringing up minor spelling points on a talk page, or by swearing? Stargoat 16:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
None of the song and dance, thank you. I raised six points. Forget your foul spelling and my foul language; stick to the main issue: YOU LIED. Shorne 16:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Shorne. You are deliberately provoking a confrontation. Your continued insults here will only harm you. Stargoat 16:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You called me a liar in front of the arbitrators. I'm only proving that you had that exactly backwards. Shorne 16:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: The comments that Stargoat interspersed with Ruy Lopez's text were added just a few minutes ago, after I pointed out that Stargoat had said nothing. The edit history will prove this if any question arises. Shorne 16:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne is actively hostile and working to undermine Wikipedia's purpose. I added the point by point response to Ruy Lopez's text less than two hours after making the reversion to the original version of the article. Shorne seeks confrontation as distraction from his activities. Shorne is acting in a dishonest and angry manner to hide his POV and lack of supporting documentation or productive argument. Stargoat 17:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose seems to be the production of right-wing propaganda under the guise of "NPOV". I am indeed trying to undermine that. As for dishonesty, we can all see who the liar is here. Shorne 18:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Khieu Samphan

VeryVerily is banned from editting this page, so he sought ways around this, and Stargoat rose to his task. Fine. This article deserves a full-scale reversion, but with VeryVerily still manuvering behind the scenes for an edit war, with Stargoat (and perhaps some others he is recruiting for one of the tag teams he denounces on his arbitration pages) as his hands, I see this is not to be done.

So I will do one edit at a time. Doing many at once just serves to confuse people. I will start with Khieu Samphan's supposed admission that 1 million people died under the Khmer Rouge. I am removing this. This is presented as an encyclopedic fact yet it did not happen. Stargoat reverted it even though I am sure he has no idea who Khieu Samphan is at all, he is just hitting the revert button. He says I am citing "first sources". What a conundrum for him to say, I doubt he could ever find a first source for this supposed admission. Perhaps he should learn a little more about the topics he is editting.

It is not a first source, since where is the reference to a first source? And it's no more up to me to not be able to remove unsourced, unreferenced material from an encyclopedia unless I find a reference to someone saying it never happened, then it is to removing a reference to the moon being made of green cheese unless I can find someone saying it is not. The onus is on the person making the claim, not the one disputing it.

While I dispute needing to provide a reference in subsequent edits, I just so happen to have one, which I will provide even though I don't have to. It is said Khieu Samphan never said this in After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology (ISBN 0896081001) by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman p. 172-178. One of the persons agreeing he never said this is Father Ponchaud, who is the "first source" that most of the charges on this page comes from. If his veracity is doubt, that brings the veracity of almost everything said on this page into doubt.

I am removing the sentence. It has no basis being in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I'm sure the person who reinserted it knows nothing about the subject matter, but is just blindly following VeryVerily (as shown above in a link), who also knows very little about the subject matter. Ruy Lopez 19:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That it is in the article itself implies there is a source for it. You are deleting material; therefore the imparitive is on you to provide documentation. I, however, have been willing to work to find a solution. I do not have any problem with this particular deletion of material, though others might. Chomsky does not inspire, ah, credibility.
On another point, I would like to say though that your insults are troubling. I have answered you point for point above. I am making an effort to compromise. If you want to make changes to the article, you can as well. Stargoat 19:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Merely throwing mud on Chomsky's credibility will get you nowhere. People will disagree on Chomsky (I myself am highly critical of him), but one thing that has to be admitted is that he does his research. Shorne 20:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CPK philosophy, program and so forth.

In terms of the CPK philosophy, program, politics, plan and so forth, this stands out:

"The ideology of the Khmer Rouge combined a revised form of Maoism with the anti-colonialist ideas of the European left, which its leaders had acquired during their education in French universities in the 1950s. To this was added resentment against the Cambodian Communists' long subordination to the Vietnamese. The zealous Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism, build communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time."

The first sentence is ridiculous, with the last being the most ridiculous. Regarding the first one - the Indochinese learned anti-colonialism from the European left? What a joke. This statement is ridiculous although I'm not touching it for now. I am working on this slowly, so I'm removing the most nutty stuff first.

"The zealous Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism, build communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time." What is the source for the CPK thinking it could build communism in Cambodia - and quickly to boot! Even the most optimistic communists worldwide talked in general about "socialism in one country", never mind "communism in one country", never mind in a relatively short period of time. I've never seen anything referring to the CPK thinking this.

Nuon Chea made a statement in 1978[6] describing party philosophy, plans and so forth. He says the CPK was considered ultra-left during the initial armed struggle, because of the armed struggle, but this attributed idea would put their ultra-leftism off the charts. The linked to statement spells out the CPK philosophy and plan better than anything I can find, and it contradicts the "communism in one country - quickly" claim. While this is a coherent statement, I have seen more fragmented discussions of the CPK philosophy and plans as well, and they did not support the "communism in one country, quickly" idea. Just the opposite, most of them show the CPK worried about whether the country would continue to be socialist or would become capitalist (which is smart because that is what eventually happened). Where did this idea that the CPK was seeking to create communism immediately in one country come from? Why do all their statements about their plans contradict this? Where did this idea come from? I am removing this sentence. Ruy Lopez 20:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nuon Chea is a Cambodian holocaust denier. Of course, this is a very healthy activity for him, as saying otherwise might be determental to his health, being number two in the Khmer Rouge and all. This is a fascinating document, particularly the part about the B-52s ( ;) ), but unfortunately the article itself is quite circumspect.
When the article was given Chea's government was more or less at war with Vietnam. He's doing this for propaganda purposes. His discussion of socialism is because he's trying to justify the conflict begun by the Khmer Rouge between the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam. The article (fascinating though it is) does not really prove anything. Given that the Khmer Rouge's activities surrounding the idea of Year Zero are almost universally aaccepted, the phrase should stay unless there is more information. Got anything else?
On another note, I would like to point out that the UN refers to it as the Khmer Rouge [7] If you really like, I suppose the best name might be "The Pol Pot Regime". Would that work for anyone?
On a third note (I've gota few minutes) here's one of the UN's estimates of death during the Khmer Rouge's regime. [8]Stargoat 21:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are careening all over the place going on tangents and then being very vague about what is stated here. Your reply is as circumspect as you accuse Nuon Chea's of being. You talk about Nuon Chea and deaths in Cambodia, what the UN called the CPK in a report, then again about deaths in Vietnam. All of which have nothing to do with the edit being discussed.
The article is a statement with the most coherent statement of the CPK poitical philosophy and program one can find online. There are others but not in a narrative, and more fragmented. The political program the CPK spelled out has nothing to do with the political program of "communism in one country - quickly" which I removed. Where are the sources for such a claim?
Everything you say is on other topics than this one aside from "Given that the Khmer Rouge's activities surrounding the idea of Year Zero are almost universally aaccepted, the phrase should stay unless there is more information". I have no idea what the "idea of Year Zero" is, and was unaware that it was "almost universally aaccepted (sic)". There was a book called Year Zero by a French priest, you're saying the idea of that book is almost universally accepted? What does that have to do with communism in one country? Your statement is confusing (the "idea of Year Zero") and then you are vague about who accepts this ("almost universally accepted") or how this relates to the question of "communism in one country" and how this fits into a Marxist-Leninist program. I've heard of socialism in one country, never communism in one country.
What is "the idea of Year Zero"? Who are the people who "almost universally accept" this idea? What does any of this have to do with "communism in one country - quickly"? Ruy Lopez 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm attempting to be police and create a discourse on multiple issues. You've chosen to be hostile. Fine.
Chea is arguing for support of a war with Vietnam and attempting to deny the atrocities that have already taken place and are slowly being recognized by the rest of the world. It does not make any argument worth listening to. Your attempt to use it simply shows the weakness of your position. Find new documentation quickly, or the article will have to be reverted.
Furthermore, your quote, "communism in one country - quickly" does not actually come from the Wikipedia article, or from Chea's paper. Where did you pull it from, and why are you constantly refering to it? Stargoat 01:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When I dealt with more than one issue at a time you reverted things en masse so I decided to go over things one at a time. My last edit was of one sentence. I am not talking about Cambodia's relation with Vietnam or supposed atrocities, I am only talking about the supposed policy of communism in one country. You have cited no sources pertaining to a policy of communism in one country. The CPK policy statements make no mention of a policy of communism in one country. The only place where such a policy exists is in the mind of whoever wrote out that nonsensical sentence. Do you have any sort of reference to a policy of communism in one country? You have yet to address this issue at all. If Nuon Chea is biased, at least he is a reference, you offer no references.
communism in one country quickly is a reference to "communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time." Xism-in-one-country is a well-known Marxian phrase, in this case Cambodia being the country, and "within a relatively short period of time" is summarized as quickly when I have to use the sentiment over and over. I see no reference to this policy anywhere. In fact, this sentence is a contradiction, Maoists would try to build socialism before they tried to build communism. No one trying to implement communism in "a relatively short period of time" could be called a Maoist. So the sentence contradicts itself, aside from there being no reference to this policy existing, or attempts to enact it. And your last reply hasn't addressed this, which is the main issue. Ruy Lopez 02:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Revised maoism is the correct word. The Khmer Rouge appealed to the peasant population of Cambodia to form their government, as opposed to traditional Marxist-Leninism, which appeals to the urban proletariat. They also used violence, believeing that through violence, all goals could be achieved. This is pure Maoism. That they attemped to impose Communism quickly had less to do with the ideology, and more to do with practicality. Without something more concrete, this should not change. Stargoat 17:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, it's their derivative of Maoism and not strict Maoism, fine. "That they attemped to impose Communism quickly had less to do with the ideology, and more to do with practicality." This doesn't make much sense. With Marxists being materialists and not idealists, I'm not sure ideology is the best word to describe their party line. Marxists try to synthesize practicality ("material conditions") with their ultimate goal - implementing communism. If you had said the NEP was more to do with practicality than "ideology", I would sort of understand because that is saying one is taking one step backward in order to take two steps forward, at least theoretically. In this case, communism is the "ideological" goal, so I don't see why a quick implementation of it would have more to do with practicality than ideology. I would think in general the opposite would be true. Most of my thoughts on other matters related to this are in the next sub-section of the discussion page. Ruy Lopez 21:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Again, I don't even buy the claim that the CPK's ideology was derived from Maoism. Where's the proof of this? After all this goddam time, we still do not have a whiff of a reference from Stargoat and his ilk. Shorne 23:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You think that "through violence, all goals could be achieved" is equivalent to Maoism? That shows both your bias and your utter lack of knowledge of the subject. You need to do some reading before coming here to tell us how it is.
Ruy Lopez is right about Maoism; you are spewing nonsense. In addition, the Maoist government never recognised the CPK. It did, however, criticise the CPK, as I have already demonstrated. Shorne 18:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"All power springs from the barrel of a gun."
A statement that Mao made about power in general—in capitalist as well as in socialist societies. Shorne 20:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sentence now

"The Khmer Rouge apparently believed that they could, through their own interpretation of Maoism and in justification of the brutal use of power, build a form of communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time."

Well, denoting that they were not strict Maoists removes one of the contradictions here. We have a new problem with your rewording:

  • "In justification of the brutal use of power" is not only POV, it is very clunky grammar within the sentence.

And we still have the old problem:

  • There is no evidence that they were trying to "build a form of communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time". None of their political statements ever said they were trying to do this. I can think of no observations of Cambodia that would lead one to draw these conclusions. I also don't know of any of the serious Cambodia scholars who promotes this view, although it's certainly possible one exists. No sources, no references etc. Reverting. Ruy Lopez 21:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ruy, you are changing the topic here. You are removing material. You must provide sources. You have not provided a convincing source. I am, however, willing to compromise. Until you come up with something better, it should stay in the original form. Stargoat 22:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Although parts of it are quite POV. Maybe we can come up with some compromise. See the existing version. Stargoat 23:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The material states something for which no sources or references have been provided. It might as well say "Pol Pot liked to eat fried chicken in France". It would be difficult to find sources contradicting whether or not Pol Pot liked to eat fried chicken in France, the onus is on the person making the claim. This is stated as a fact and beyond the question if it is true or not, there is not even a reference to any source. The document of Nuon Chea spelling out the CPK political program implies that what is stated here was not their policy. You have disputed the document, but I think you are confused about who should be providing sources.
To reiterate - something is stated as a fact. Beyond the question of whether or not it is true, there are no references for what this statement says. The onus of reference is upon the statement maker, but I posted a document which implies that a quick march into communism was not part of the CPK's plans. It's immaterial to me if this is dismissed as "biased", at least I provided a reference, which I don't have to do anyhow, none have been forthcoming from the proponent of the idea that the CPK were trying to implement communism in Cambodia quickly due to their "practicality". Ruy Lopez 23:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alrighty. Ben Keirnan - [[9]] says that Pol Pot was influenced by Maoism. On the article itself, one pieces of supporting documentation says Pol Pot was influenced by Maoism. [[10]]
The first reference merely asserts that Maoism influenced Pol Pot. That tells us almost nothing, and it certainly doesn't satisfy my request (below) for specifics. In addition, lots of people, even in the First World, were "influenced" by Mao; that doesn't mean that they were Maoists. Your second reference contradicts your bald claim: "We have only insufficient and conflicting evidence about what ideologies the Khmer Rouge leaders found most compelling, and it is difficult to know to what extent these beliefs, such as Maoism, were actually pervasive and convincing beyond the core group." Shorne 00:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad I gave up and started doing this one thing at a time, since you are always flying off on tangents. We were talking about communism-in-one-country-quickly and now we're talking about Maoist influence on Polt Pot. Anyway shifting gears to what you are talking about for a moment, once you changed the wording to say that the CPK were not strict Marxist-Leninist Maoists but used some derivation of Maoism, I conceded. "Well, denoting that they were not strict Maoists removes one of the contradictions here." "OK, it's their derivative of Maoism and not strict Maoism, fine." I was pointing out that Maoism is incompatible with trying to build communism immediately. Now you're reversing direction and pushing the idea that the CPK were Maoists again. I'm saying being a Maoist, at least in a strict sense of the word, means you do not try to immediately try to build communism. In fact, this is a tenet Maoism borrows from Marxism-Leninism. Your new comments that Pol Pot was a Maoist hurts your case that the CPK was trying to quickly implement communism-in-one-country.
But none of this addresses what I've stated repeatedly. It's stated as a fact that the CPK wanted to build communism-in-one-country quickly (for "practical" reasons). Beyond whether or not this is true, there is no source for this. I am just repeating myself for the umpteenth time here.
A while back I said you know little about thie topic of the CPK and you said I was being insulting. I think this is very evident though from going through this. We are talking about communist philosophy and communist party lines in this sentence and you seem to have no familiarity with those topics - in general, never mind this particular case. This is evident from what you just said above - by pushing the idea of Maoist influence on Pol Pot, you're weakening your argument that the CPK was trying to implement communism immediately. You're sort of arguing against yourself. Ruy Lopez 00:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pol Pot was willing use to violence. This is Maoist. Pol Pot recruited from the countryside. This is Maoist. Pol Pot wanted a fast revolution. This is not Maoist. Mao wanted anything that could extend his hold on power. Pol Pot was willing to use Maoism for as long as he thought it would satisfy his goals. He did indeed use a modified form of Maoism. There is no arguing this. Nor have you present documentation saying otherwise, though I have presented documentation saying he was. We're not debating Kant, we're talking about petty dictators made good. Perhaps we should move onto the next topic, as I have removed much of the POV of the sentence. If you are willing to work for further compromise, we should probably do this by expanding the section, explaining the differences between Maoism, what Pol Pot did, and a lack of evidence one way or the other. Stargoat 05:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Using violence and recruiting from the countryside are also practised by those wacky white-supremacist militia groups in places like Idaho. Should they also be characterised as Maoist for that reason, or as using "a modified form of Maoism"? Or that Mao got his ideology from gun-toting white-supremacists in Idaho? Shorne 05:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You have to be pretty dense if you can't see how Mr. Pot's ends (using Maoist guerrilla means to achieve radical "Pol Potist" Maoist ends) were much different than KKK nuts in some Midwestern state. That, or you're stupid. Probably both. And Stargoat, I wouldn't pay attention to Ruy, a guy who praised the German Democratic Republic over West Germany by saying that the latter was dominated by unreformed Nazis. He's got a severe form of Chomskyitis, only Chomsky (at times) manages to present his case in a less shrill fashion. Trey Stone 08:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've already made my point about Maoism, what it says in the article regarding that is fine. We can drop talk of Maoism. On another topic, Pol Pot wanting a fast revolution and building communism fast are not necessarily the same things. There is no evidence the Khmer Rouge wanted to implement communism-in-one-country quickly. It is present as fact, yet beyond whether it is true or not, I have no idea where this information came from, or of any source which says this. I've never heard of this before. As I said, the onus is on the person stating this, just as it would be on someone saying "Pol Pot liked to eat fried chicken in France". It is something hard to disprove, so I have to ask where this information came from. Nuon Chea's discussion of the CPK party line implies that a line of building communism-in-one-country quickly did not exist. If the source is considered bias, at least it is a source. Where is the source saying the CPK was trying to build communism-in-one-country quickly? Of course, what I just said I have said over and over again. I would like to move on as well but I have not seen any justification for this clause to exist in the article. Ruy Lopez 07:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with Ruy Lopez on one point here: the issue of "Maoism" has not been resolved. I am not happy with leaving some meaningless, unsupported connexion to Mao in this article. I have made the point elsewhere on this talk page more than once. Shorne 04:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pol Pot's goal was to create a state that, through the efficient use of labor, could produce three times as much rice per hectare than any other state. To do this, he emptied the cities. The changes made in the short period of time that the Khmer Rouge held power were radical. Without proof otherwise, the sentence should stay, though, as always, I'm willing to work on a compromise. Stargoat 13:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Communism means "from each according to ability, to each according to need". Trying to triple the rice harvest or making radical changes does not mean you are trying to "build a form of Maoist (rural) communism in Cambodia within a relatively short period of time".
You could say the CPK was trying to raise levels of rice production within a relatively short period of time. They certainly were. Before you said this was done out of "practicality". Which I certainly agree with. But you have just changed tack and are now saying the CPK had some pipe dream about tripling rice production quickly and emptied the cities to do so. This is a very strange way of looking at the situation.
In 1969, the US began bombing Cambodia. By 1975, the bombing and the civil war drove millions of farmers off of their farms into the cities such as Phnom Penh. So the cities were overflowing with hungry refugees from the countryside, and the countryside was growing very little food. When the CPK marched into Phnom Penh in April of 1975, international food aid to Cambodia was immediately cut off. So the CPK took power in a country with cities overflowing with millions of refugees from the countryside, most rice paddies laying dormant and untended, and the international food aid these people had been receiving immediately cut off. Obviously, to avoid a famine, the CPK had to get these farmers back to their rice paddies and growing rice again. So they sent them back to the countryside. They did not empty the cities - empty? The idea that Phnom Penh or other large cities were completely emptied is ludicrous. Millions of recent refugees were emptied out of the large cities, sent back to their farms though. The idea that rice production could be tripled by using labor efficiently was not so nutty. Ruy Lopez 21:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The idea of rice production being tripled was ludicrious. Agriculture will always use the most productive land first, and the least productive land second. The rice that was being grown was already the most efficient use of land and labor. It was a mao-like grandious plan with no one telling Pol Pot he was a fool.
The more I consider your argument, the more right it seems. But we cannot just remove the sentence. I've added more information, which I believe you will find suitable and correct. Take a look, and let me know what you think, or alter it suitably and we can talk about the changes. Stargoat 18:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


In addition, Stargoat still has not provided anything like a reference. Shorne 04:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Ruy Lopez. No offence is intended, but Stargoat is betraying an ignorance of Marxism. Marx said that a long period of social transformation known as socialism would be needed before the goal of communism could be attained. If the CPK was trying to bypass socialism, it was not Marxist, and therefore it was not Maoist. Saying that it was Maoist implies that it was Marxist and that it therefore upheld the Marxist road to communism, which is called socialism. If you say that the CPK simply threw out the bit about socialism, you don't have "revised Maoism"; you have revised Marxism, which is probably some sort of religiously motivated utopia.
Very little is known in the West about the political ideology of the CPK. The relevant documents are mostly in Khmer and are all but unavailable outside Cambodia. The CPK was in power for less than four years, and for most of that period it had to cope with a society in ruins from US imperialist warfare, so very little can be concluded from the CPK's practice. I want to know on exactly what grounds anyone claims that the CPK was "Maoist". I won't accept "influenced by Maoism": the same could be said about all sorts of young people in the US in the 1960s who nowadays are partners in law firms in midtown Manhattan. Shorne 00:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also have responded to your document above. It's not worth wasting any more time on. Stargoat 23:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In that case, you concede the point? Thank you; we'll remove the sentence. Shorne 00:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I also dispute "through their own interpretation of Maoism". Pol Pot did not even claim to uphold Mao until 1977. (Mao died in 1976.) And that was probably just a stunt to curry favour with China in a bid to get support. The CPK was well known for claiming to be ideologically independent, not accepting the legacy of any leader: Mao, Stalin, Lenin, anyone. Again, any claim of "Maoism" on the part of the CPK needs to be supported with more than hot air. I wouldn't accept it in this article without a source that explained the connexions between the CPK's ideology (to the extent that it had one) and Maoism. Shorne 22:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is pretty obvious that Khmer Rouge ideology was just a severe form of Maoism. It's like Stalinism: a lot of Communists condemn it (including the Secretary who followed him,) but it was still a form of Marxism, with some additional violence and repression mixed in. And given that the CPK called themselves the Communist Party of Cambodia saying they were not dedicated to Communism, at least their version of it, is ludicrous. Trey Stone 08:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've said over and over again that whether they were Maoists or not are a minor point, and whether the CPK wanted to develop communism-in-one-country quickly is a more important point. Which I've seen no evidence of. Ruy Lopez 09:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stargoat's current edit is alright, but some of it is borderline POV (such as "they used the ideology that was expedient," Trotskyists used the same logic in calling the USSR not "truly" communist, but historians have always called it that) and it needs to be simplified. Trey Stone 01:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's also true. Look through the talk page or read the material. The leadership of the Khmer Rouge was willing to call itself Maoist or Marxist-Lenin depending on how it could benefit in world opinion.
We do not need to simplify the article. It's a complicated set of issues. Removing it entirely does not serve the community. Removing true information, and replacing it with nothing is simply not acceptable. Stargoat 12:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there a link that proves such? I was under the impression that the Khmer Rouge just thought they were the true Communists, that their system was going to transition faster and be purer than that of their Vietnamese neighbor. About international opinion, the Khmer Rouge wanted an essentially isolated country, free from "imperialism" -- that's why I put in the bit about refusing to accept international aid. I don't think they were too concerned about world opinion, considering they were entirely focused inward. Trey Stone 23:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Morally questionable"

This is also rubbishy POV. Any state's use of power could be called "morally questionable", yet the CPK is singled out for this abuse. Shorne 23:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aw, dem poor CPKomms, singled owt. Shadow Trey 08:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And the reason?

And the reason why there has been no attempt at dialog or substance from either Ruy or Stone is??? Stargoat 12:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attention Ruy Lopez

Please stop smearing Marxoid bullshit all over wikipedia. I know you may like to blame U.S. imperocapitalism for all the world's ills, but certain unpleasant facts about your favorite regimes are just that, facts. And what is it with Khmer Rouge being "derogatory"? It is not derogatory, it is what they were commonly known as, similar to the Shining Path (Slaughtered Path?) and Viet Cong (not the Viet Gook. Maybe then you'd have a case.) And there is no one outside of the Chomskide school of thought (actually, I think even he kind of retracted his claims in the '70s, while still not admitting he was wrong) that disputes the historical fact that the Non-Maoist Opportunist "Communist" Party of Utopian Kampuchea was responsible for widespread death and despair. This isn't a place to babble revisionist about how it was really the U.S. that caused the deaths (indirectly? maybe. directly? sorry.) Trey Stone 07:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In case you don't know, we've been having this conversation with Ruy Lopez and his gazillions of sockpuppet accounts for almost a year. It's impossible to get through to him. The claim that Khmer Rouge is a derogatory term is utterly indefensible, but he repeats it everywhere, as well as providing downright bizarre arguments such as that French names are "scary". VeryVerily 18:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, I'm not going to have it revert back to "they used Communism because it was expedient." This is a pathetic attempt to dissociate the Utopian Party of Kampuchea from Communism/Maoism. It's indisputable that the Khmer Rouge were far, far more brutal than, say, the relentlessly ideological Sandinistas. It's also indisputable that Hitler was far more brutal than Franco, but they're still both called fascists, as they were both associated with the ideology, to different extents. Trey Stone 07:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Swearing is not an argument. I don't care if it offends your sensibilities. The previous version is correct. Now, present some proof for your changes or go away. Stargoat 11:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am going by the Khmer Rouge's actions, which were getting rid of anyone who opposed their rural (Maoism always drew its support from peasant guerrillas, distinct from the indsutrial wage laborers Marxism's supposed to draw) "Year Zero" dream, where Cambodia would be a self-sufficient, happily egalitarian community of cooperative peasants. It is fine to mention that their Maoism was more extreme, perhaps revised from Mao's Communism, but that convoluted explanation (defense) just doesn't cut it. Like I said, there are different types of communism, just like there are different types of fascism. Shadow Trey 07:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this article

This article has been a mess forever. I look recently and see only ad hominem attacks, and mud thrown at the CPK, although the vaguer the better (the CPK is "responsible for widespread death and despair" - what would one say the people carpet bombing the Cambodian countryside were responsible for? When Americans protested this at Kent State, Jackson State and elsewhere they were killed by the government). And then there's the claim that the CPK were "utopian" although of course any proof or even reason to think so is not offered. Ruy Lopez 08:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's look down the list of Ruy Lopezisms:
-Alleging "vagueness" when he can't find any reliable historians to dispute the Khmer Rouge's destructive policies.
-Proposing a moral equivalence to U.S. bombing against Cambodia when its purpose was to destroy NVA and Viet Cong resources, two other excellent "people's democracy" and "anti-imperialist" organizations Ruy no doubt loves. What was the purpose of Khmer Rouge's brutality? A Maoist "utopia." I think the results are pretty clear. At least with the Stalinist Union and Maoist China you had some wider economic progress to accompany the destruction.
-Talking about Kent State as if it was a nefarious government plot to shut up truth-tellers about Cambodia.
-General posting of bullshit followed up with "what did I do to deserve this?"
Good show. Shadow Trey 05:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bombing the countryside was not the cause of the Cambodian's plight. It did not kill 600000, it did not even kill 200000. Bombing rural areas will never cause that kind of damage. The problems in the countryside were a result of the North Vietnamese displacing the Cambodian peasantry.
The Americans protested this at Kent State because they did not think about what was really happening. The Americans at Jackson State were rioting.
Additionally, you should stop making stuff up. There is no claim of utopian in the article you changed. Stargoat 13:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is very interesting. On the one hand, you have people disputing that the Khmer Rouge were that bad because of their anti-American, anti-imperialist, and Communist bearings. At the same time, they're attempting to deny that they were Communist (or at least Maoist) precisely because of the reputation they have as Nazi Germany redux. Trey Stone 22:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Do not remove NPOV tag again until you all agree to do so

It seems to me that if there is a disagreement over whether the article is NPOV or not, then there is a de facto NPOV dispute. I am restoring the NPOV tag. Play nice now, discuss and if necessary fix the perceived NPOV problems. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you: Even though the person who added the NPOV tag did not bother to say why here on the talk page, you think it should stay? That makes zero sense. Let the fellow put it back and post here a synopsis of what he thinks is wrong with the article. Just putting an NPOV tag on the article says nothing. Does he think the article portrays the Khmer Rouge in too harsh a light, or too kindly? And why? A2Kafir 02:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The edit history over the past month clearly shows that the article is the subject of hot dispute. This alone is enough to justify the NPOV template. I agree that it is the duty of all editors to resolve such disputes, and I have urged Stargoat to engage in discussion to iron out the differences. However the NPOV template should only be removed when all are happy that the subject of the article is covered from a reasonably neutral point of view. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Significant material is being deleted from the article. Instead of modifying the article, and restoring all the information that has been deleted, I am merely slapping a NPOV tag on the article. I do not have the time to fight over this now. That the tag was placed at all, and with all the activity that has been taking place should be reason enough for it to be there.

Furthermore, the tag was up less than a day before being removed. The POV pushing that is taking place here by both sides is obscene and demonstrates a disengenious view of how Wikipedia, and the truth, should work. Both sides (Shadow Trey, Trey Stone, VV, Kafir vs. Shorne, Lopez, Hanpuk) should be ashamed of themselves. The real loser here is a person who does not know any better coming to look at this half baked article.

There is no mention of the Cambodian refuges being forced into the city by US bombing, and North Vietnamese aggression. An estimate of 1.5 million is low-balling the deaths, and the manner of the deaths should be made more clear. Percentages of those who had died should also be given, and the deaths caused by US bombing and North Vietnamese activity should be made more clear. There is no mention of the starvation caused by the Khmer Rouge's policies, or the denial of land use that occurred because of NV and US activities, or the loss of international aid. There is no mention of Pol Pot's crackpot ideas about how to restore the country of Cambodia, or the increase in farming that was to be his miracle. No mention is made of the greater role that occurred in the Soviet Union's support for a Pan-Indochinese state, or the PRC opposition to this, and the suffering of the people of Cambodia as a result. In fact, no mention of China is made at all. No real discussion of the type of Communism the Khmer Rouge practiced takes place. There is no mention of the Nixon Administration's desire to enter Cambodia to help the Cambodians, and the US Congress' opposition to this. No mention is made of the fact that there are still places in Cambodia westerners cannot travel without taking their lives into their hands, due to Khmer Rouge holdouts. US and UN activities in Cambodia from 1975 to present are glossed over with POV wording. This article is suffering from serious POV problems and is very incomplete. The tag belongs. Stargoat 04:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to add info about U.S. bombings. Just remember not to go too in-depth because it is more a subject about the History of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. J. Parker Stone 04:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Restoring some of the recently deleted material

I'm working through the deleted material verifying and restoring as I go. Any comments about the new/old version of the second paragraph in Rise to power? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apologies, I screwed up and inadvetently restored a lot of material in bulk, instead of just a single paragraph. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pov and nonsense

This page is ridiculous and POV. Imagine if the US Democratic Party or Republican party began with how many millions were killed (Indians, black, Iraqis, whoever) during their time in office and with a picture of say some of the hundreds of people one state alone (Texas) kills every year. The US is torturing people in Abu Ghraib, and in this country of Cambodia, where up until 1975 the US bombed hundreds of thousands when it wasn't invading it (or shooting Americans protesting the invasion like at Kent State) and then became best friends with the CPK who supposedly were so awful in 1979, yet the US current murders, tortures and so forth are not to be cataloged, yet let's make this whole article about a handful of people executed during the CPK's time in power decades ago. Sorry, I don't think so. Ruy Lopez 01:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No-one who knows or cares anything about Cambodia takes your stupid rants seriously, so I suggest you save your keystrokes. Any edits you make to this article will be reverted. Adam 10:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It might be worth noting, Ruy, that it was more than a mere handful. Rather, it was a significant proportion of the country's population at the time. In addition to which, other regimes who are known for their murderous ways have articles dedicated largely to their killing. See the Nazi Party page for example. Brother Dysk 11:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ruy's clinging to a dead and IMO morally bankrupt ideology is rather pathetic - i remain amazed that anyone could still belive in Communism after the revelations of the Gulags and other crimes of the Soviet era - it's a remarkable ability to deny reality - rather like the Left insistance that the Soviet Union should never be called "Russia" even though the RSFR dominated the SU in size, politics culture etc etc PMA 15:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. If the CPK was a group of saints as Ruy thinks, was it right for the US to support Pol Pot after he was kicked out?

Exile 16:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We "supported" Pol Pot in that we supported the opposition to the Vietnamese-installed govt. in Cambodia during the '80s. I don't know how much of it consisted of Khmer Rouge. J. Parker Stone 08:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tagging is not appropriate

I removed the NPOV template as I think the article is a neutral article. The person who placed the template (I won't be naming name/s) has not even attempted to state a full reason. All the information (except for a few parts) are factual information is based on that, the article is not POV. Squash 04:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


POV

There is absolutely nothing in this article that actually talks of the agricultural, political, industrial reforms brought about by the KR. The article is approximately no use whatsoever to anyone looking for factual information on the Khmer Rouge, hence should it really be on wikipedia? Can I make a suggestion that someone other than a go-happy yankee looking to show the drastic measures of communism, rewrite this article. Preferably with information on economic reforms, facts, figures, what was expected, what was the outcome (which appears to be the only topic picked up in this article.)Not just rants about death, which, just to put the fly in the ointment, is nothing compared to the amount of death the US government and other capitalist countries have "distributed" in their time. Thankyou Disgruntled Wikipedia Reader

Firstly the people working on this article in recent times have been a Cambodian (Squash) and an Australian (me). Secondly there were no "reforms" worth talking about, unless you call closing down the entire urban economy and putting the population to forced agricultural labour a "reform" (try it some time and see how you like it). Thirdly the only significant legacy of the KR regime was the number of people they killed and the immense damage they did to the country, so that is what the article is mainly about. Fourthly anonymous rants will be ignored. Adam 10:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep your right wing emotivism out of the articles - that is what Point Of View is. Anything that constitutes as change counts as reform. Informtion about the actual what they did, how they did it, what was it to achieve, how was it structured. These factors are important information, it has nothing to do with me not liking agricultural farming. Would it be better to remain ignorant of such things, so mistakes can be repeated. Is this to sort of ideology you promote? If so don't write on an encyclopedia based on knowledge and learning. Yes fine thats great they killed a lot of people. Anyone with any knowledge of Cambodia could have told you about Pol Pot blah blah etc etc. Quite frankly I don't care about how unhappy you are with what happened, simply the neutrality of articles. But once again maybe you prefer right wing skewed indoctrination to suit your own purposes? Finally remaining anonymous is the right of anyone on Wikipedia, when since has this become an exclusive club for members. The FREE encyclopedia where ANYONE can submit. So why don't you reconsider what you wrote previously, and have a long think about what this place is about. Leto

Why does this article seem to attract so many idiots? Adam 16:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Adam, a well structured positive argument you have there. How enjoyable it is to know that I share the world with people like you. Leto

"Brothers"

There is no explanation for why some of the leaders are referred to as "Brother Number X"... the name just appears all of a sudden. I have no idea whwhy they are called "Brother..", and an explanation would be a great help. plattopusis this thing on? 16:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Brother (or Khmer "Bong") refers to the power hierarchy. Brother Number 1 is of course the leader up until Brother number "X" and so forth. In Cambodian culture, a person who is older than you is called your Brother "Bong" (technically "Bong Prous" for Male Brother). Whilst for people younger then you they are called "Pa'oun" either Prous (for younger male) or "Pa'oun Srey" (for younger female). The use of "Bong" is used very commonly in the Khmer language, if you had a chance to go to Cambodia, you may even hear for instance a customer asking a bartender and calling him "Bong", such as "Bong, knom jong ban bee-yer mouy" (Brother, I want one beer). In U.S. equavalent terms it's like calling someone your bro' - brother. Except in Cambodia, it is a formal and respectable term unlike in the U.S. where the term 'bro is used in informal occasions. In the Khmer Rouge system, the elders are called brothers as a respectable title to their name. It should be stated that the term "Brother" (Bong) were _not_ invented by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge simply adopted the name, such as how they adopted the name "Kampuchea" as the new name for when they controlled present day Cambodia. Squash 02:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK cool. That information should be entered into the main article for non-Cambodians who aren't aware that the term brother is used as a term of respect or position. plattopusis this thing on? 14:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ta Mok

The article says in one place that the KR no longer exists (and that is certainly my understanding), and in another place that Ta Mok is its current leader. What is the source for this? Adam 08:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems that the source I checked (Infoplease) was dated, so I checked another source (MIPT Terroism Knowledge Base) and it states that Ta Mok was the final leader of the Khmer Rouge. Squash 21:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Leaders who have been charged or tried

  • Khmer Rouge military commander Ta Mok, charged with crimes against humanity, held in detention since 1999
  • Kaing Kek Ieu, aka Duch, the directer of the group's infamous S-21 torture camp
  • Unrelated charges: Sam Bith, senior Khmer Rouge general charged with abducting Briton Mark Slater, Frenchman Jean-Michel Braquet and Australian David Wilson in 1994 after a train ambush. Sentenced to life in jail by Sok Sethamony, a judge in the Phnom Penh municipal court.
That is a perfectly valid change, thanks for taking time to go to the facts :) Squash 00:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1970-1976

This page has a lot of misinformation about 1970-1976. Little is talked about Sihanouk's role in fighting Lon Nol, GRUNK, FUNK and whatnot. Cambodia was not immediately renamed DK after April 30, 1975 - it was renamed in January of 1976, over eight months later. A lot of information in this article is wrong. Also, Sihanouk's role from 1970 on is mostly ignored. For example his 1973 visit to Cambodia. I can cite sources for my changes, if anyone has other sources differing with my changes please cite them, thanks. One of my sources is the US Library of Congress country study of Cambodia which is actually on Wikipedia. Tou Samouth 03:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRUNK and FUNK were always fronts for the KR. They should be mentioned, but not described as though they were autonomous bodies, where they were not. Sihanouk was a figurehead sitting in Beijing or Pyongyang. His name was an important asset for the KR but he had no control over them, as he painfully discovered after 1975. I have reversed some of Tou Samouth's edits accordingly. Adam 04:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

December 9, 2005 comment

Can anyone fix that? I do not know the date, but I do know that the date has to be wrong as it has not happened yet MrSpam 05:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)