Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 7

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

Unprotected

The Kmher Rouge can not be compared to great people like Mao Tse Tung because they are not communists nor socialists.They are an example of when Capitalism or Communism goes too far.In many cases it has been communism, ergo communism now has a bad name.But in other cases it has been Capitalism.Dick Cheney, CIA, FBI etc.... are all examples of this.The Kmher Rouge were an oppressive regime brought on by visions of greatness.The executed many people for no apparent reason.Pol Pot was sentenced to life house arrest.Is this really what a man who ordered the execution of more than 5 milllion deserves.No.He deserves much more than this.He should be allowed to experience what he has caused.While I admit that capitalism is a flawed system and that the previous mentioned organizations (CIA, FBI) are responsible for alot of things they did not cause the genocide iin Cambodia.That was the Kmher Rouge.How does it feel to have some one who's 14 put one over you, eh?and I'm Canadian too!

It's been weeks and weeks and weeks. Time to edit. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess the edit war will continue then.
I just have to voice my amazement after seeing the edit history and talk archives of this article. People just seem to lining up to either glorify Pol Pot and co. or shift the blame (How can any evil regime be Coommunist? Impossible! Must be a capitalist trick...). If the genocide had been commited by an American ally we'd here universal denouncements of "American imperialism". Not so here. They were just "forced" to do it, and in fact they were really just peace loving proletariat looking for moderate changes in the fascist Lon Nol government. If the American bombing of Cambodia had ceased, of course the KR would not have evicted the population (to avoid mass starvation, of course, as Ruy Lopez so eloquently stated). And if no bombings had occured Pol Pot (I MEAN SIHANOUK, GRUNK FUNK KRUNK SUNK DUNK BUNK LUNK KUNK PUNK and CPLAF!!!!) and his peace loving party coalition would not have suffered traumatic stress disorder which caused him to believe that the Americans were still bombing Cambodia after 2 years and had to protect his citizens from danger via forced movement, not unlike the New Orleans situation. In fact they were still bombing Cambodia, the CIA just applied invisible paint on the planes so no one would see them (got that from the NYT). The real criminals are Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who commited notable war crimes at Kent State, but I guess that warrants no mention in Wikipedia. As for these so called KR "executions" they were merely carried out against rich exploiters of which most Cambodians despised. The KR only truely became genocidal after the heroic Vietnamese democratic liberation and when the Americans funded them.
Sorry for the sarcastic rant. I just don't think we have any moral values whatsoever here, as editors are intent on blaming everything possible that goes wrong on capitalism and America. At least that is my perspective. CJK 22:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
"If the genocide had been commited by an American ally...Pol Pot (I MEAN SIHANOUK, GRUNK FUNK KRUNK SUNK DUNK BUNK LUNK KUNK PUNK and CPLAF!!!!) and his peace loving party coalition would...". Um, you seem to be having selective memory, Pol Pot was a US ally - who was Reagan sending arms to in Cambodia to drive the Vietnamese out? I recall discussion of this before...suddenly the front with the CPK went from being something treated as non-existent to being very serious to where the CPK didn't even exist in it (in this person's mind). I guess there is a lot of intellectual gymnastics necessary in these situations to explain how Reagan can support the people he had been denouncing as genocidal the year beforehand. Ruy Lopez 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Time to protect the article again, obviously. Adam 03:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Mr. Lopez has been reading anything written in the past few archives. Anyway, U.S aid was mostly to the royalist and anticommunist segments of resistance and not the KR. And since the KR weren't even commiting a genocide when the aid came (since they were ousted), I don't see his point. CJK 19:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
U.S aid was mostly to the royalist and anticommunist segments of resistance and not the KR - right, when the US was aiding them, the coalition became "royalist and anticommunist", but when FUNK took over in 1975, any mention of the coalition is just a joke - Pol Pot (I MEAN SIHANOUK, GRUNK FUNK KRUNK SUNK DUNK BUNK LUNK KUNK PUNK and CPLAF!!!!) and his peace loving party coalition
After all, all responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, I mean, the "Khmer Rouge" . Lucky for me I don't have to do the commissar-like leaps of logic you have to to paint a rosy picture of US involvement in Indochina. Ruy Lopez 22:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Lucky for me, I actually use facts. If the 80s coalition was a KR front then Cambodia would be Maoist, would it not? CJK 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I see no constructive purpose that is served by preventing people from editing this page. Let us block anyone (and there seem to be a few, a very small few) who is editing abusively, but let this page be edited. I'm unprotecting the page and I dare the edit warriors to risk a pretty hefty block if they edit war. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I want everyone who had reverted this article in the past to read this and realise that it may apply to them.

This is a declaration of war on edit warriors.

I have unprotected this article. The next revert you or Adam Carr or Ruy Lopez or any other long-term edit warrior perform on this article, you may be blocked if I believe you have contributed to this article's long history of disruption. Please try to edit in a more creative manner than just removing the material someone else has material or replacing material that someone else has removed. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You are going to block people for the mere purpose of reverting? What else can we do besides revert information that both sides believe to be propaganda and unencyclopediac? Discussion has ceased in a deadlock and there is no agreement. CJK 20:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Strangely, I find myself in agreement with CJK. Mr. Sidaway is unhappy this article is blocked, so his "solution" is to unblock the article and threaten to block users who have some interest in the article and editing it. Of course, Mr. Sidaway's non-solution will do nothing to solve the problem. I have attempted to solve the problem before - Wikipedia says step one is to try a request for comments, but the several times this page was put on RFC, the only thing that has happened was for the page to be protected each time. Then I went to the mediation committee, but Adam Carr said he would not abide by the decision of the mediation committee. Now we have Mr. Sidaway's arbitrary non-solution. It's obvious the only solution is to have ArbCom or some such body mediate the dispute between me and Carr, with them having the final word. That has not happened - perhaps there is not even any avenue to having that happen, so this has dragged on for a year, and with Mr. Sidaway's non-solution, I'm sure it will drag on for another year, or more. Ruy Lopez 00:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

At Ruy Lopez' request I've inserted a NPOV notice--please don't remove it until there is substantive consensus that the article is neutral. I can't help you with dispute resolution, but if you think only arbcom can help you then I suggest that you petition them. I won't let this article be blocked unnecessarily because of disruptive behavior by some editors. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

US involvement in 1970 coup

I find it neutrally worded but somehow I doubt Ruy will accept it. CJK 21:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. There were places in each version that I felt were clearly better worded than the other. How about if I remove " (although no evidence of this exists)" , OK? "believed by some" is of course fine with me and indisputably correct. The parenthesized comment is a bit argumentative ( perhaps unencyclopedic or even OR too).John Z 21:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the claim has been unsubstantiated and voiced mainly by the KR and its supporters, therefore I don't see why it should be there in the first place, or voiced as if it has any credibility. Other than that, I hope this will succeed, thank you. CJK 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope weakening organized --> aided helps a little, and hope will be acceptable to Ruy too. It is clear that each side's ideal version would be different :-). I'm curious as to his reaction, as again, I tried to use some of his stuff in this version. Some of each side's deletions were well founded too, as they deleted (essentially) repetitive or prolix material. I'm very glad that this is basically OK with you, and I am still optimistic about it being acceptable, or at least a substantial narrowing of the differences, to him.John Z 22:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, but again there is no evidence provided by the assertion of even "aiding" the Lon Nol coup and I believe that should be reworded to lesson the accusations credibility.
Ruy has repeatedly stated that the KR evacuations in 1975 must be blamed solely on the United States, therefore his endorsement of the version is doubtful. CJK 22:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no more changes from me for now, just looking for something that each side might accept, albeit with gritted teeth perhaps. In its present form it is nothing but a statement that an accusation exists, and we shouldn't underestimate readers' intelligence or ability to take accusations with a grain of salt. Someone, probably Ruy could eventually add a source to the most respectable accuser they can find. Especially, confirmed by your comment on his prior statements, my feeling was that "may have" might not be acceptable to him, and as it is not too consistent with the previous "made Lon Nol's government unpopular" stated as fact, which practically speaking implies that the level of relative support for the KR increased, I left it out. Are there sources who disagree with the contention, which always seemed unremarkable to me? Certainly there are sources ( e.g. antiwar) who claim it. "Probably" might be an acceptable compromise, which is not stating much more than the previous clause. Although Ruy may have said that in discussion, he at least did not put it in the article, at least the recent versions I looked at, so my hope is that he may not allow his beliefs to interfere too much now either. Going for now, maybe till tomorrow. Ciao,John Z 22:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is any credible sourcing for the accusation I will again insert but until then it will be left out. CJK 20:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"Believed by some" and stuff like this is weaseling, and should be avoided except when summarising in the intro and the detailed citations are given in the interior of the article. Other weasel phrases to avoid: "It should be pointed out that." "X pointed out that". If something is a fact it can be stated as a fact, if it's someone's opinion it should be stated as a fact that X asserted the opinion. "No evidence of this exists" cannot be stated as a fact. If unsupported accusations are made just state the fact that the accusation has been made and don't name any support; this will stand out against the rest of the reported opinions--which of course must be correctly sourced. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have left the entire thing out pending decent sources. Also, I do not believe Wikipedia should insert every crackpot conspiracy theory on the grounds one person says it. Rather, we should stick to facts. CJK 22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this section, since I think if we want to address a topic other than the 1970 coup and US involvement in it, it can easily be done and would be less confusing if different topics are separated. If anyone disagrees, feel free to change it back.
This is not a crackpot conspiracy theory. Most of the major scholars on Cambodia in the English-speaking world agree there was support for the coup. Milton Osborne says "The involvement of some American intelligence services is now beyond dispute". Justin J. Corfield says "The evidence that the US and her allies were involved in the plot is now overwhelming". There are also people who worked for US intelligence who have said that the US aided the coup.
Intervention and Change in Cambodia: Towards Democracy? by Sorpong Peou p. 126
According to Samuel Thornton (an American who worked from May 1968 to May 1969 as an intelligence specialist at the US Navy Command in Saigon) the coup preparations began in late 1968.
According to Samuel Thornton, at least two briefings on the proposal [to assassinate Sihanouk] "were given to senior intelligence staff at the US Military HQ in Saigon" and "the high level government" in Washington gave "blank approval to take any and all measures" to overthrow Sihanouk.
Anyhow, there is a ton of evidence that the US knew the coup was going to take place before it did, and I don't know any major scholar who denies this. There is also a lot of evidence the US had a hand in the coup, such as the above. There is plenty to cite in this regard. Ruy Lopez 04:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Cetainly you can site this "ton of evidence" if it exists. You are going to have to do a little better than a proposal to assassinate Sihanouk which did not come into effect. CJK 19:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And I do believe that some in the U.S. knew about the coup beforehand and said they would aid an anti-communist government. However, I do not believe it was actively assisted by the U.S. CJK 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

An American Navy intelligence officer came forward and said he had a briefing "given to senior intelligence staff at the US Military HQ in Saigon" that "the high level government" in Washington gave "blank approval to take any and all measures" to overthrow Sihanouk. And that is only one of the pieces of evidence, as if you really need much more. You'll probably be saying the US didn't push Diem out next... Ruy Lopez 08:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
How about some sources along with evidence that concerns how the coup was aided and when instead of one sentence from one guy in who was talking about an assassination plot that did not develop and was not even thier in 1970? This is not Chomskypedia. CJK 20:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Ruy Lopez has placed an NPOV tag on this article, and an administrator had threatened me with blocking if I remove it. Ok, so what is the basis for this tag? In what ways is the existing article not NPOV? We are entitled to a clear statement on this from Lopez (or anyone else) over the next day or so. If none is forthcoming, I will remove the tag regardless. Adam 06:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Take it out when you have a version that all agree is reasonably neutral. Not before. Warring over a NPOV tag is pathetic and, moreover, disruptive. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you Tony? There cannot be "a version that all agree is reasonably neutral" while Lopez is active here, because that is not his objective. His sole objective is to turn this article into an apologia for the Khmer Rouge. Unless and until Lopez either desists or is banned, there will be a continuous edit war at this article. The simplest thing to do is to leave it permanently protected with a note saying that you will unlock it for genuine editors who want to add to it, but not otherwise. Adam 10:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been willing to compromise with this article from the beginning. I am not sure how to do so with an attitude such as Adam Carr is displaying here. I would prefer to talk about the content than ad hominem attacks. Adam Carr prefers making ad hominem attacks to discussing the content under dispute, this behavior is why he was admonished several months ago by ArbCom for "discourtesy and personal attacks".
I certainly do not expect to see an article I would wish to see, just one that IS "reasonably neutral" as Carr states. Carr has stated he will revert any edit I make, *ANY* edit I make on sight. So far he has been true to his word regarding that. I'm not sure how compromise, or a solution is possible with this being the attitude on the other end, which I see displayed above. He is simply folding his arms and refusing to try to compromise, he refused a request for the mediation committee to come in a while back, he said he would not abide by their decision. I said I would, even if I disagreed with it. I'm not really sure how to come to a compromise, to a neutral version with such intransigence. I think if you go back through these talk pages you will find this as the case. Whenever someone new pops there head into this article, Carr begins leaving them messages on their talk page as how I'm a fanatical communist or some other such nonsense. It is the same type of personal attack ArbCom chastised it for - I call it mud-throwing, and it works, my hopes for some new, reasonable person to come in is dashed. Why does Adam Carr made ad hominem attacks and try to drag others into his campaigns against users instead of trying to come to a compromise over a content dispute? I don't know, I'm not a psychiatrist, and neither does ArbCom. Ruy Lopez 03:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocking/protection and the NPOV tag

I've check with WP:ANI and there is substantial opposition to my proposal to block editors in this protracted edit war for disruption, so I won't be doing that. There is substantial support for the dispute resolution path and I suggest that all involved take notice of that. For instance I see no sign of a RFC on this article, nor (surprising given the frequent allegations of user misconduct) do I see any evidence that there has ever been a user conduct RfC on the principal involved parties.

The NPOV tag should remain; it's clear to me that there is substantial POV content in the article (see this item in my talk archive for my points on this). --Tony SidawayTalk 12:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding an RFC for this article - this article has gone on RFC several times. Usually it gets put on, an admin wanders in, sees me and Adam Carr edit warring and locks the article. This has happened several times. That has been what happened the last few times the article has been in the RFC. As far as the mediation committee, if I recall correctly both me and Adam Carr thought any mediator would be good, although both of us thought for various reasons Ed Poor should recuse himself as the mediator. I said I would abide by the mediator's decision, Adam Carr has said he wouldn't abide by their decision. Ruy Lopez 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write the section you quote there, and it wasn't there the last time I read the article right through - the article isn't all my work, you know. There is a Cambodian editor working on it as well, and while he knows a lot and is well-intentioned, his English isn't perfect and he does tend to editorialise. If Lopez was a legitimate editor, small matters like that could be fixed without any trouble. But as anyone familiar with his works can tell you, he is not a legitimate editor. Of course I can't prove this to you, I can only enjoin you to undertake the weary task of reading the whole edit history of the article, and then you will see quite clearly what is going on. He trades on the fact that almost no-one has the patience to do this. Adam 13:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter who put the opinion there. If it's there then the article cannot be described as conforming to our standards on neutral point of view. Thus we should keep the notice there to warn readers of this. Just because the person who wanted to put the notice there is someone you usually disagree with, does not mean that he is wrong on this occasion. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
On your problems with Ruy Lopez, you cannot expect people to go trawling through archives to try to see what's going on and decide whether they agree with you. We have a mechanism known as Request for comment on user conduct. You and one other editor must fill out and sign a form expressing your complaint in terms of Wikipedia policy. The time limit for getting two signatures is 48 hours after you first raise the complaint, to give you time to notify the other editor and get him to read, edit and sign it. The evidence is presented in the form of diffs ("In this edit the person contravened policy X by doing Y". You have to show what attempts you have made to resolve the conflict. The editor in question then gets a chance to respond. People can read the complaint and the response and get the opportunity to endorse either of them. They can also add their own outside views, which can also be separately endorsed. This enables you to establish your case in a manner that doesn't require people to trawl through archives, and for other editors to make their comments. You or the party you complain about can then change their actions on the basis of the response. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Tony, those POV you report, are positions maintained by scholars presented in a personal point of view way. Why don't you edit and make that part NPOV, insteed of adding a POV tag? Fadix 21:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. if there are scholars who hold the opinions that are expressed in the article, then the opinions can be turned into facts by reporting them as the opinions (with quotations if possible) of named scholars in cited publications at page such-and-such, line so-and-so. I'm not getting involved in editing this article. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony, you are extremely naive if you think the reason Lopez put an NPOV tag on the article was because of passages like the one you quoted. Also, if you are not prepared to do the necessary research to know what is going on here, you cannot expect me to acknowledge your right to make determinations about the matter. As Chairman Mao says "No research, no right to speak." I will go through the article (again) tonight, and do a thorough edit on it to remove accumulated bad editing. Adam 00:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"I will go through the article (again) tonight, and do a thorough edit on it to remove accumulated bad editing." - this seems like the most disruptive thing Carr can do. I also, would like to completely rewrite this article by myself, but considering that there has been an edit war over basically one question since May (who fought and won against Lon Nol from 1970 on - FUNK/GRUNK or the Khmer Rouge), the idea of making a "thorough" edit, when this one small matter has not been able to be handled for months on end, seems to be throwing fuel on the fire. I am happy to work with resolution on the small issues (the GRUNK/FUNK issues, CJK's insertion while that was still unresolved, and now the discussion about the 1970 coup). However, if Adam Carr decides to up the ante wit a "thorough edit", then I see no choice but to counter this with my own "thorough edit". Then instead of concentrating on the three issues currently being discussed, we will simply have a major edit war between radically different versions. Does this make sense? Doesn't concentrating on as few issues as possible, one at a time, make more sense? I ask those reading who is taking the more pragmatic approach to a solution, me or Carr? I don't think Carr should do this, if he does, I will do the same thing, and this will spin out of control. But he will have started it, which I do not wish to happen. Ruy Lopez 04:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The boot is on the other foot. Back up your accusations about Ruy Lopez in a RfC or stop making them. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Three issues

In my mind, the best way to fix this page would be to go from one issue to the next, one at a time. The issue I am concerned with is the GRUNK/FUNK one. That was an edit war between me and Adam Carr from May to July when CJK came in and with that still unresolved, made some changes of his own. So then two issues went forward from there. Now a third issue, the question of the CIA and the 1970 coup is going on. I think we should try to limit the number of issues under dispute, although Carr's threat to do a "thorough" rewrite of the article will throw this course into even more of a shambles. It seems logical to me that the easiest thing to do is take issues one at a time, and resolve them. There are three issues right now, and I think we should try to resolve at least one of them before adding a new one. If we keep piling on issue after issue, then it seems obvious to me that the chance of a resolution disappears. This is not a strongly held opinion, I just think it obvious to me that it would be simpler to solve one, or a few issues at a time, then to have revert wars between radically different versions with dozens of differences (which was the situation we had a year ago). If Carr wants to radically revise the article, then I will do so as well, and we can go back to an unsolvable edit war instead of a method where a compromise can be reached, i.e. finding a compromise on issues, one (or a few) at a time. Ruy Lopez 04:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what these "three issues" are. One is the GRUNK/FUNK issue. My position is that they were KR fronts and should be described as such. I certainly won't be budging on that, since it is a simple matter of fact. Second is the 1970 coup. I have never disputed that the US was behind the coup - although someone else (I forget who now) made an edit saying that it wasn't. I'm quite happy to have the article say that some say it was and some say it wasn't, which seems to be the fact of the matter. What is the third issue? Adam 05:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The third issue were the edits CJK made while the first issue was unresolved. He made these edits in July, I believe. The second issue is a new one, or actually, a very old one that hasn't been discussed in a long time. Some US intelligence people came forward and talked about how they did the coup, and there are other sources as well, some of which (but not all of which) I cited in the discussion today. Ruy Lopez 05:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And are you for against CJK's edits? Adam 05:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I originally discussed this here Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_6#CJK.27s_edits. I just completely re-read it, and realized my memory was faulty, CJK denied the US was involved in the 1970 coup this July, so that is not a new issue (I knew it had been discussed before, but thought further back then July up until now). The July issue I had remembered was CJK lowering the estimates of how many were killed by US bombing raids. Which also effects the CPK death toll accusations - every minus from the US Air Force death column is more or less added to the CPK death toll column. So we can say the first issue is the GRUNK/FUNK one, the second issue is the 1970 coup, and the third issue are other things brought up in CJK's July edit - primarily the US bombing raid death toll, but #3 also encompasses anything else CJK changed in July and henceforth. And in answer to your question, I am against CJK's edit which lowers the death toll number by the US Air Force. Ruy Lopez 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So, am I to understand, that if an agreement can be reached on (a) the 1970 coup (where I don't have any disagreement with you), (b) the GRUNK/FUNK question, and (c) the US bombing casualty figures, then there will be no further dispute? That you will no longer make edits like this one, in which you deleted the statement that the KR regime killed more than a million people, with the comment "How come American pages don't start out like this?", or this one, in which you deleted the entire "torture and killings" section (written by a Cambodian, by the way, not by me)? (These are just two picked at random from your long, long history of deleting anything which holds the KR responsible for mass murder in Cambodia, but they are fairly typical). If that is the case, if are willing to state that you will no longer pursue this campaign, then a form of words on those two questions can probably be found. Adam 06:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

When did I say these were the only three issues? Two of these issues aren't even mine - CJK is who introduced the issue of claiming the US was not involved in the coup. CJK is also who lowered the US death toll. The only one of those three issues I introduced was the GRUNK/FUNK one. Is that my only problem with the article? No.
Not there's anything wrong with the two edits of mine that Adam Carr points out, but I should note they are from over seven months ago - so I guess he's mentioning them because he thinks they're so egregious. OK, let's look at the second edit where yes, I did make a deletion. Let's look at one of the sentences I deleted - "The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed anyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, professionals, intellectuals as well as ordinary Khmer people who breached their rules." I find the idea quite ridiculous that the Khmer Rouge executed "anyone" who not only fit into of these five categories, but anyone merely "suspected" of fitting into one of these five categories. I mean, this statement is just silly, it is incredibly overreaching, and of course, offers no proof or citations of its assertion.
Then you say on the first edit that I deleted "the" statement that the KR regime killed over a million people, as if there was only one statement of this. There are actually at least six sentences in the article remaining that say the KR killed over a million people, so perhaps you mean "one of the" statements, not "the" statement. Your sentence is the omniscient "Voice of God" statement "The Khmer Rouge is generally remembered for its rule in which an estimated 1.5 million people died.", which, yes, I do have a problem with. A sentence I did not delete was "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." In the sentence I deleted, some omniscient narrator is telling us the Khmer Rouge killed 1.5 million people. In the sentence I left, three sources are cited which give various statistics. It is NOT an agreed fact that "an estimated 1.5 million died". It is a fact that US State Department funded Yale project says 1.7 million people died. I know you prefer the omniscient, unsourced, "Voice of God" statements which tell us what to think and what is and isn't true, but I prefer to point people to various sources and let them make up their own minds. You don't seem satisified with saying that the Yale project says 1.7 million died, for you, Wikipedia must state as encyclopediac fact that 1.5 million died. Then of course there's the matter of the US dropping several hundred thousand tons of ordnance on Cambodia in the early 1970s, and that someone arbitrarily lowballing that death estimate by say 100,000 is usually adding that 100,000 on the shoulders of the "Khmer Rouge", a group whom it is of course disputed whether it was who was in power when Lon Nol's regime collapse in 1975, or whether the blame is say, Sihanouk's, who was the leader of GRUNK after all. Ruy Lopez 08:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So the answer to my question is "no," which means that combat will resume. As you wish. Adam 09:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

On the numbers, just to choose one issue at random, is there a serious problem with Ruy Lopez' point: that "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" is a better formulation than a bare statement of the form "the Khmer Rouge killed 1.5 million people." It seems pretty reasonable to me. If we look at The Holocaust, we see that the figure for people exterminated by the Nazis' racial policies is dealt with in a pretty circumspect manner, and I think we could learn a lot from this. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not the numbers, it is the placing of this fact in the opening paragraph. I and most other editors who have been involved with this article consider the fact that the KR regime murdered around 1.5 people in four years - proportionate to the population of the country the worst democide in modern history - to be the single most important thing to say about the KR: indeed virtually the only thing, since the regime did nothing else of any lasting consequence. This fact must therefore be placed in the opening paragraph. Lopez's initial position was to deny the KR democide outright, then to quibble about numbers, then to argue that the US Republican Party had killed more people so it was unfair to single out the KR etc etc etc (since you don't want read the edit history, Tony, you'll have to take my word for this). Now he appears to concede the numbers, but still wants to bury these facts in the article somewhere. I suspect in fact that he is only appearing to make this concession because he knows that Mr Administrator (you) is watching. As soon as you go away, he will revert to type and go back into democide-denial and start telling us that it was all Reagans's fault etc etc. Adam 14:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well the precise numbers should be in the article somewhere. If Ruy is arguing to keep all mention of the estimates out of the intro, I agree that this is wrong. "...remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people" looks fine to me, though unless there's special reason to favor the higher number I'd rather see it rounded to 1.5 million since other estimates are in the lower direction. Of course it's also appropriate to mention the destabilization of the country through cross-border military activity in the war, the deposing of Sihanouk, and massive US bombardment of Cambodian settlements. I think that's reasonably well covered in the text at present but it should be summarised briefly in the introduction: "came to power as a result of political instability cause by the Vietnam War" or something. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam Carr says: Now he appears to concede the numbers, but still wants to bury these facts in the article somewhere. I suspect in fact that he is only appearing to make this concession because he knows that Mr Administrator (you) is watching. As soon as you go away, he will revert to type and go back into democide-denial and start telling us that it was all Reagans's fault etc etc.. Let us see what I had to say in October (Talk:Khmer_Rouge/Archive_4#article) - The only anti-Khmer Rouge thing in this article which is not just an opinion but a sourced fact is what various organizations said the death toll in the country was under the Khmer Rouge. This I left in because it is a fact - according to the poster, Amnesty International said 1.4 million people died. This is a fact, of course, Amnesty International may be right or wrong, they may or may not attribute it to the American or Vietnamese government instead of the Cambodian government, but at least it's a source, a citation that can be argued over. In other words, despite Adam Carr's assertion that I am just leaving this in because I know someone is "watching", actually I am doing the same thing and stating the same opinion I did 11 months ago, that the Amnesty International number should stay because it is a fact, and that the omniscient statement of how many died should go.

I should also point out that I said before the easiest thing to do would be to go through issues one-at-a-time and resolve them. I pointed out at least three issues. Adam Carr is going back to February, and introducing a fourth issue, which is really the "big" issue on this page. While introducing yet another issue not yet resolved in this case is fine in light of it probably being the big issue of the page, I think we should refrain from adding any more, a fifth, sixth, seventh issue. Perhaps we should concentrate on resolving issues before finding new ones or digging up old ones? But again, since this is the main issue on the page, in this case it is fine.

Adam Carr says that in this article, like other articles, we should wrap up the discussion about the section discussing death toll at the top in a short one sentence summary. I don't have a problem with a summary on top or where it is, I have a problem with what it says. Actually there are several sentences on top, let's look at them.

"The Khmer Rouge regime is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people, through execution, starvation and forced labor. It was one of the most violent regimes of the 20th century often compared with the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population of the country it ruled and time in power, it was probably the most lethal regime of the 20th century."

Yes, I have a problem with this. I think it's fairly clear that whoever wrote this is not writing in a calm, dispassionate, rational, factual, neutral tone, but has an axe to grind with the Khmer Rouge. "It was one of the most violent regimes of the 20th century often compared with the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong." Does this type of subjective sentence belong in an encyclopedia, in the introduction? It is part of Carr's omniscient telling-us-what-to-think narrative on this page. Please - just the facts. Give me the sources and let me make my own judgement.

The number of deaths has been brought up as a subject of discussion by both it you. Since this sub-section is called "three issues", with the three issues being the 1970 coup, deaths by US bombing and FUNK/GRUNK, and since this is a fourth issue, I will start a new section after this one to discuss deaths. Ruy Lopez 17:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the point that the words you cite sound like axe-grinding is well made. Perhaps we could try some alternative wordings for that passage on the regime to see if we can reduce the subjective component. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Depopulation

Depopulation is the best and broadest name I can think of for a sub-section talking about depopulation in Cambodia. Some depopulation was caused by emigration, some by death. Some death was caused by US Air Force bombs, some through execution by members of the Khmer Rouge, some by just normal old age.

If we look on the Khmer Rouge page, further down it says "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. The United States Department of State and the State Department funded Yale Cambodian Genocide Project give estimates of the total death toll as 1.2 million and 1.7 million respectively." Now let's look up top.

"The Khmer Rouge regime is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people, through execution, starvation and forced labor." Let us go over this sentence. First, the "Khmer Rouge regime" is mentioned, meaning that the Khmer Rouge was in power when this happened. But when was the Khmer Rouge in power? Was the Khmer Rouge the sole group in power in 1975? Adam Carr says absolutely yes, which I question, since Sihanouk, FUNK and GRUNK were in power in 1975 after Lon Nol's regime collapsed. This is significant since most deaths in Cambodia happened right around the time of power transitions - 1975 and then 1979. If the Khmer Rouge was not in power in 1975, then are they responsible for deaths in 1975? Even if they were in power, are they responsible for people who starved to death in April 1975? May 1975? June 1975? If there was no food available, and international food aid was cut off as soon as they took over, are deaths due to starvation due to their fault alone? Weren't people in Phnom Penh starving to death prior to April 1975, even with international food aid? Plenty of Westerners, including Americans (including the New York Times), talked about the lack of food at that time, and said that refugees in Phnom Penh being sent back to their farms to grow food, which is what happened, was the most sensible course action, although in this article it is portrayed as an act of ideological madness - "forcibly evacuating the cities to the countryside so that people could become self-sufficient. In fact the motive for the evacuations was ideologically reflected in the Maoist doctrine which the Khmer Rouge followed, which praised the rural peasants and detested urban city dwellers."

We move on in the sentence from Khmer Rouge to deaths. This article gets terribly conflated, I think purposefully so, so that natural deaths, emigration, deaths caused by others and so forth all wind up in a big jumble. Being that the sentence talks about execution, starvation and forced labor, one would think that the 1.7 million deaths means that above and beyond natural death due to old age and such, that all of the 1.7 million were due to execution, starvation and forced labor. Cleverly conflating all these different things in an attempt to deceive the reader is something done a lot, which is especially attempted at these summaries on the top.

Then we get to 1.7 million people. Well, this number is disputed. Most of the numbers on the page are not from me - any estimates I have put up have been removed by Adam Carr. Mr. Sidaway is probably unaware that most of what I have put up has been removed by Mr. Carr. I will dig up my numbers and post them again. And as I said before, what does this number mean? Refugees? People killed by US bombings in 1972? People who died of old age? Executions by Khmer Rouge members? People who starved to death in April or May 1975 - and whose fault is that, and was the Khmer Rouge even in power in May 1975?

Then there are executions. Here is conflating again - lower down it says the CIA estimated the KR executed 50,000 to 100,000 people, but here, the words 1.7 million and executions are thrown together in an attempt to confuse people into thinking the KR may have executed 1.7 million people.

Then there is starvation. When did it happen? Was the KR in power in April 1975? May 1975? Even if they were, are deaths caused by starvation in the days, weeks and months after April 17, 1975 entirely the fault of KR, or FUNK?

Then there is "forced labor". Where is the reference to this?

To be continued... Ruy Lopez 17:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding sources - Professor Michael Vickery, author of Cambodia 1975-1982 (ISBN 9747100819) says that there were 750,000 deaths above the norm in Cambodia from 1975 until 1979. Unlike most other scholars, Vickery had travelled in Cambodia prior to 1975, and was the only Khmer-speaking scholar to interview Cambodian refugees on the Thai border in the 1970s. Vickery makes a careful case for this in his book (and in academic articles), using the same sources most other scholars refer to - the 1962 census (the last census done in Cambodia before 1975, an estimate of Cambodian population in 1975 is just guesswork from this census, factoring in differences in births, refugees, deaths due to US bombardment etc.) and so forth. Ruy Lopez 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So basically you are citing a guy as the sole possible source because... he went to Cambodia and interviewed refugees? Other studies put the deaths at 3 million which are just as credible. And yes, the Khmer Rouge was in power in April and May 1975. And the FUNK issue is a reiteration of past arguements. Therefore we are stuck again. CJK 20:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't see the relevancy of him interviewing, in the Khmer language, refugees on the Cambodian border? What do you think the original source of much of the information posted on this page is? Do you even know? Ruy Lopez 20:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Right, some interviews. That does not mean this study has more weight than others. By the way, when was this study written? CJK 20:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Population Losses

So now where do I start? While I have decided to answer a specific thing, I was dragged in the « game. »

International & Comparative Law Quarterly, in its Jan 2004; 53, cover in its introduction on a section titled « The Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers—A Dangerous Precedent for International Justice? » p. 227

« Historians estimate that the Khmer Rouge killed between 1.5 and 1.7 million people during this period... »

They attribute the killings to the Khmer Rouge. I will remind the user that called me kibbitzer, that Wikipedia is not here to « prove » anything, but present positions. The fact of the matter is that most attribute the killings, to the Khmer Rouge, and it doesn't matter if you can prove that they should not have been attributed to them. « Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: The Faustian Pact » by Michael Haas; Praeger, 1991 At page 26, the author presents a table, in which, he provide 1.5 million as number of victims.

« Propaganda, Politics, and Violence in Cambodia: Democratic Transition under United Nations Peace-Keeping » by Steve Heder, Judy Ledgerwood; M. E. Sharpe, 1996

p. 3

« The recent chapters of this history have included a period during which more than a million Cambodians died from execution, starvation, and disease as a result of the policies and practices of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), commonly known as the Khmer Rouge,... »

Consulting works after works, I get the SAME results. Another « A History of Cambodia » by David Chandler; Westview Press, 2000 p. 223 « Although Vietnamese anti-DK propaganda was often heavy-handed and inaccurate, even cautious estimates of DK-related deaths caused by overwork, starvation, mistreated diseases, purges, and executions came close to two million Cambodians, or one in five. »

Now, comming to the book, Ruy refer to, I just happen to have it here(revisionists often like to quote him by selective quoting). Lets see what the book says as well.

p. 28

« Although adequate statistics are unavailable, no one of any faction involved in the war has tried to deny that there were from half a million to a million war deaths, figures which compare with the more serious estimates--several hundred thousand to over a million --of abnormal deaths between 1975 and 1979. »

The book itself does not give any precise figure of 750,000... this figure comes from a middle value between 500,000 to a million. What the authors say, is that no one deny that there could be losses from 500,000 to a million, he also adds it compares to more serious estimates, and in the most serious, the figure of over a million is included.

On page 37

« The first compilations giving currency to such views were the books of Ponchaud and Barron/ Paul; and journalistic accounts during the two years following their publication repeated that "all intellectuals," or "all doctors," or "all former military" had been killed, or that 1 million Khmer died in the first year, or that Cambodian women had become infertile and the birthrate was not sufficient to replenish the population. »

The book itself present also testimonies, but the author interprate them, in some cases comparing the numbers provided with recorded statistics. And to this adds bogus statistics from the author which dump absolute figures for the population increases and allegedly basing himself on the CIA(Ruy, himself repeat probably the CIA repeatdly, since it's included in the book). But yet, given that the population of Cambodia recorded a very considerable increase of population previously, one wonder how without background one can add an absolute figure as he has done to cover entire years. This is actualy a wrong thing to do « statistically, » (I will maybe present statistics of population myself, but I can't garanty I will have the time to do that)he finish with this:

« Moreover, some of the 500,000 war victims are buried in mass graves, and without forensic tests it is probably impossible to determine whether death occurred before or after 1975. A decline of 400,000 does, I would say, indicate failure of the DK system, but some of the more extreme estimates of deaths from execution and hunger must be relegated to the realm of black propaganda. It is simply impossible to take the generally accepted population figure for April 1975, the population alive today, demographically acceptable birth rates, and project an extermination figure of 1-2,000,000. »

BTW, I won't even cover here, his « leaving 740,800 deaths in excess of normal. » Which methodologically is flowed, what he did, is not statistics, it's simply a « throwing » of numbers. Besides, while it is true he has interviewed, I wonder how this could be considered, when he claimed those interviews being exagerated. Would his theses still be considered as being based on interviews, when he dismisses those that are contrary to his own thesis?

But still, it is irrelevant, we have here one author, against the large majority of historians..., and it would ve accurate to say that he is in the fringe of those that believe that less than a million have died.

I apologize now, if I do not cover the other points, as I was engaged in another project. I will participate, everytime I find the time. Regards. Fadix 21:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I will add as references, Selective Mortality During the Khmer Rouge Period in Cambodia by Damien de Walque, published in the Population and Development Review 31(2): 351-368 (June 2005). He cites Heuveline, and states that "Probably the most careful excercise of demographic reconstruction, camparing the population structure before and after the mortality crisis, has been performed by Heuveline (1998a) using electoral lists." (p. 352) Heuveline present as central estimates for between 1970-80, to be ranging between 2.2 to 2.8 million, when taking just the range from the end of 1974 to 1980, we find about the figures that Adam presents, and which most historians uses. Also, I forgot to add, that for people to read more about Ruy liked author(Vickery), and some of his bogus analysis, you can research the newsgroups, where he participated. Fadix 22:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I applaud you for taking the time to research this. CJK 22:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
This (and some of the above) are secondary sources off of primary sources. A primary source would be the 1962 census. Historians who take the 1962 census and other sources into account are secondary source. If we base things off secondary source, then we become a tertiary source, there's no reason for us not to base things on the primary sources. The numbers between people fluctuate for two reasons - different estimates off of usually the same data, and different points. If you're counting refugees to different countries, the "number" goes up, but this doesn't certainly count in the deaths due to execution, starvation or "forced labor" mentioned in the beginning. Ruy Lopez 23:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you read Patrick Heuveline research? Before interpreting know that he is a demographer, and takes into account emigration tables, in his research, for the decade in question, he estimated an absolute low of 1.2 million deaths(of course natural deaths are excluded). I don't know if you realize what absolute minimum means, in short it means that if we were to draw estimates by taking the maximum ranges for refugees, and lowest population increases from the last census, etc. we would still find Vickery estimates to be lower than the absolute low figures. To simplify things, suppose that there is a bell function(not really, but to simplify, lets say it is one), and that we cut both extermities 5 or 10%, we would have to cut the absolute lower figures(also the higher ones). Note that Heuveline didn't only do that, for the absolute low, but as well, for the absolute high of 3.4 million. Heuveline rigurous research is based on population records, and it is, to my knowledge, the most extensive and serious work.
Besides, some serious research, gives an accurate estimate of Cambodian refugees. For example(and since I'm a Canadian, I was particularly interested to those that found refuge in Canada), between 1975 and 1995, 16,818 Cambodian refugees settled in Canadian, according to the Inited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Know that the table of refugees are considered when drawing the tables to estimate the losses of population.
Comming to « primary », « secondary, » and tertiary sources. Wikipedia by nature is a tertiary sources, since it is its task to present « primary » and « secondary » ones. Wikipedia can certainly not be a primary source. So, I don't get what is the poing of bringing this up. Fadix 02:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

One thing that Wikipedia shouldn't do is interpret primary (or secondary, or tertiary) sources. We should provide factual summaries of all significant interpretations of source data. If there is little agreement between them we should note the fact, and we should also note the published margin of error on estimates. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you have a point there, but my interpretation was of no consequences for the article, since I had no intention to edit the article and inject my interpretations there. I do believe that an entry, just for the losses of lives in Cambodia is in order, the same types as Ottoman Armenian casualties I've created. I am ready to work and creat such an entry, if I have some help from others, because it will be just on the middle of my other projects(the type of help I request is not about ressources, I have those. I need someone for the grammer fix, and text writting , etc.). The things is that there are various records and statistics on the losses, and limiting to a few lines, would of course exclude various ranges, and just keep what most historians say. This population losses settled, we can then work on other points that Ruy has problem with. In my opinion, the article as is, would only require a neutralization of the tone in some sections, and is OK, it is obvious for me that Ruy will never agree, because his request of Encyclopedic tone, will not favour him. Fadix 21:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Well I agree 100% with this. Most of the major historians draw their conclusions from various primary sources, then put their conclusions and estimates together from them, making them secondary sources. I think we should list the primary sources (like the one census done in the 1960s), then we can talk about the conclusions drawn from the data by various historians (which would be secondary sources). Some sources almost everyone agrees on, some sources people disagree on. We should divide this up and put it up. Ruy Lopez 08:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

"One thing that Wikipedia shouldn't do is interpret primary (or secondary, or tertiary) sources. We should provide factual summaries of all significant interpretations of source data. If there is little agreement between them we should note the fact, and we should also note the published margin of error on estimates. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)"

This is the most sensible way to break this thing down from what I can see. Many of the things posted here are secondary sources making various estimates off of the primary sources that no one question (and sometimes sources that are questioned). So we should list the two types of primary sources (questioned and unquestioned), and then the secondary sources, e.g. conclusions people drew off of these primary sources, and how and why they did so. Do not sign edits in anything other than the comments section. The other sections should be short summaries, and not a confusing blob, and I will be editing outside of the comments sub-section for brevity and clarity. If you do not want to use bullet-points or want to be verbose, do it in the comments sub-section, I will not be editing other people's edits there. I will be editing for brevity and clarity, and if a primary source is disputed, I will make sure it's in that section, and perhaps note why.

Primary sources that no one questions

  • 1962 census

Primary sources that some question

  • Vietnamese numbers after their invasion (because they were trying to discredit the CPK)

Secondary sources

  • Michael Vickery
  • US State Department and US State Department funded study at Yale

Comments on this

The Khmer Rouge Trials

I am somewhat reluctant to edit the actual page, since today is the first time that I have ever been to wikipedia. I came across the article by accident as I was looking for something else. However, I immediately noticed some things that could be called "mistakes" in the section on Recovery and Trials:

1. There are not 300 people on the Khmer Rouge Trials Task Force. The Task Force itself is 9 people. They are listed on the website of the Secretariat of the Task Force. Moreover, the number of members on the Task Force itself is somewhat misleading since all of the members of the Task Force have many other positions and probably spend something between none and very little time on issues relating to the KRT (Khmer Rouge Trials). The more relevant number is the number of people who work for the Secretariat of the Task Force. These are the people who do the day to day work preparing for the KRT. There are 5 people who work at the Task Force more or less full time (the Executive Secretary of the Secretariat - Sean Visoth - holds other positions and AFAIK does not work full time on the KRT).

2. I think some mention should be made of the fact that the early stages of the creation of the KRT are now underway. The UN has nominated Michelle Lee to be the Deputy Director of the Administration, and her full appointment will probably be confirmed by the RGC soon. In addition, the UN has already advertised five or six position on its Galaxy jobs website.

3. My own account of how much has been contributed indicates that the total is now $44.4 million. I think the problem is that the $43 million number does not include the recent Indian contribution that is mentioned later in the paragraph.

4. The sentence about the Cambodian share of the KRT's budget is a matter of some debate. Many newspaper articles suggest that Cambodia is now trying to back out of its commitment to fund one third of the tribunal by seeking bilateral contributions. However, the Cambodian position is that it had always stated that the Cambodian share would be raised through bilateral contributions. At least one person who has knowledge of the negotiations of the budget has confirmed to me that this is true. Thus, I think the tone of the sentence in the article is a little misleading.

5. Some mention should perhaps be made of the Cambodian governments rejection of raising money through private sources in Cambodia.

6. I think that the formation of the KRT should be watched very closely in the next month or two. Things are beginning to move rather quickly and I expect that there will be lots more news to report soon. Unfortunately, little other than Michelle Lee's nomination is public right now, but I expect this to change soon.

7. It might be useful to have some discussion of the nature and structure of the tribunal. There are several novel aspects that have not appeared at any other internationalized criminal tribunal - including: the use of the civil law system of investigating judges; the use of co-prosecutors and co-investigating judges; having a majority of the judges be local rather than international; a supermajority voting system; and the use of a pre-trial chamber to resolve disputes between the co-prosecutors and the co-investigating judges.

Welcome, poke around, click on the links, read the pages on the Community Portal about how to edit. I'm ready to cut you some slack as you admit that you just found the Wikipedia, but feel free to make whatever edits you feel are necessary so that the article reflects the truth of the matter. --Easter Monkey 07:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I may indeed make the changes I mentioned above in the near future. Give me a day or two to think about how to make the changes without appearing to support a point of view. (I have been reading some of the more general articles on point of view as well as the somewhat acrid debate about POV re the KR on this page, and I don't want to get bogged down in that sort of argument. On the other hand, I don't suppose the KR trial structure will arouse the same level of animosity as the question of how many Khmers died and who is responsible.) I may also take the time to create an account =)

You should definitely do that. Many Users dislike debating with anonymous people and anonymous edits often get reverted without much consideration. Adam 09:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)