Talk:The Killing Fields

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

The Killing Fields is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The wikiproject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest.If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Cambodia To-do:
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Communist, Capitalist

One wants the article to be factual instead of judgemental. You're supposed to know, through your background knowledge, what the Khmer Rouge is? The word communist is not neccessary here (where you put it); same as Christian not in The Crusade, that we often come across. First, communism has nothing to do with his actions; he happened to carry the communist banner (Chinese Brand). Look at Vietnam or Laos, or the communist government after him. Yet, all of them have their own issues that I am sure you can point out. How do you judge when you find out that Pol Pot received a three-way support from the Chinese, American, and Thai governments? Second, on the other hand, it is very true that the proud and self proclaimed colonist-turned-capitalist Americans were the slave masters and owners who cause death to untold number of imported and native slaves.

Perhaps half of the world could be a better place if people know what they are saying, through the right use of the words. Otherwise, unfortunately and ironically, the wrong ones at the wrong time could end up leading a lot of them to The Killing Fields of the world. One's excitement should not be the cause for another's incitement.

More often quite a few elements in the society knowingly and intentionally--with either a "happy" stroke of their pen, a few clever punches on the keyboard, or couple semantics on the pulpit--use this very same technique to manipulate the mass to achieve their own ends. In other words, while Pol Pot might have used the guns, others have used the letters. Both can kill, but guns can run out bullets; and when was the last time you run out words? Maybe "Guns don't kill; people do" shoud be changed to "Guns don't kill; people don't kill; their words do."

__________________

You made your point, but maybe a bit too flowery for academic standards. Most of the time, you don't need to indict someone to crimes of slavery and murder to make them make a minor change in wording.

[edit] Communist Khmer Rouge

I was surprised the word "communist" did not appear anywhere in the article so I added it. What would cause someone to talk about the Cambodian Killing Fields at length without even once mentioning that the Khmer Rouge were communists? Hmmmm....

Perhaps because the Killing Fields were devoted to murder rather than economics. Mark1 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a sadly short article for many reasons, mainly systemic bias. Clearly a fuller discussion of the Khmer Rouge is warranted in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Mark,
Communism does not just have to do with economics, it's also an ideology. One of the most important precepts of Communism and Marxist/Lenninist thought involves thought control. The Khmer Rouge followed Maoist ideology, as well as recieved direct support from China, (and Mao was very, very good at thought control, i.e. China's "Cultural Revolution.") History has shown us that, more often than not, Communist governments have used very overt means to achieve this objective, (not always.) The founding of the Tuol Sleng prison to silence, political opposition, the supposed "bourgeois intellectuals," and other unfortunate dissidents, is one example of this precipice being carried out. Most of these inmates were systematically interrogated and murdered, along with other victims from the general population and buried in the mass graves now notoriously known as "The Killing Fields." However, I personally feel Communism can not be 100% blamed for the severity of the Khmer Rouge's actions and much of the blame lies with the individuals themselves. Because of this aspect, I believe labeling the Khmer Rouge as a Communist organization is correct.
I believe a more complete discussion of the Khmer Rouge as Dhartung has suggested should be limited here as there is a page dedicated to the Khmer Rouge already and the link is provided already.--Joshsattler 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Sentences like this is why the NPOV tag has been added, I don't have time at the moment, but will come back and help out if nothing happens in a few days

Communist governments are notorious for being very "poor", and for failing miserably to make any economic progress.

- FrancisTyers 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numerical Error

The numbers given here are nonsensical but I don't know what numbers would be accurate in their place...

"Estimates of the number of dead range from 100000 million out of a population of nearly 8 million people. to 100 billion."

The proper numbers are 1.5 to 3 million

~*~ (Response to the ABOVE) Actually, the number is 1.7 million. Less than 2000 of Cambodia's 70,000 Buddhist monks survived the reign of the Khmer Rouge. The rest were either massacred or succumbed to hard labor, disease, or torture.

~*~Emma~*~

[edit] terrorism

I've removed the tag that said this page was part of project terrorism. I don't see any obvious link between the two. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's how it's linked with terrorism; The Khmer Rouge itself was a terrorist group installed in Cambodia by Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong, when Ho split the Indochinese Communist Party in three in 1951. ----DanTD 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Um. What definition of terrorism are you using? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the basic definition applies here, just as it has in other communist wars. ----DanTD 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What 'basic definition'? There are many different ways to define terrorism, so it would help if you could express your understanding of terrorism in your own words. Personally, I tend to think that "A terrorist act is an act of violence, aimed at instilling fear in a civilian population with the intent of coercing a government into making concessions". Individuals and organisations that perform terrorist acts are terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic, like Moneterism and Propaganda, not a social structure, like Capitalism or Dictatorship. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

To Destroy You Is No Loss: The Odyssey of a Cambodian Family (Criddle, JoAn D., Doubleday, 1987) is a biography of one family's experience in the killing fields and could be used as a source. -- Beckie 129.123.156.38 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

what is going on here on this page may i ask?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.5.130 (talk • contribs)

  • By here, do you mean wikipedia, or this specific page? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

I am wondering what is the origin of the use of the term "The Killing Fields" that it has become specific to this incident.--Nasher 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From all sources I've read, Dith Pran himself coined it during the time he was escaping the country and came across these areas - Mtwebster (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, shouldn't the title of this article be Killing field? Even if the definite article is required, it should be in sentence case: The killing fields.--Srleffler 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who was responsible

Who perpetrated these crimes? The article states: "The soldiers who carried out the executions were mostly young men or women from peasant families." I am not asking about the leadership that issued these orders, but rather the mid-to-low level leaders and *specifically* the actual executioners. The article implies that it was ordinary citizens who pulled the triggers. Other things I've read have said the same thing. It seems to me that this is a classic example of class warfare. It was the middle class (educated, city-dwellers) who were murdered by the lower-class (peasants, farm-workers). Is this the case? It really seems to me that there is a LOT of blame to go around. It seems to me that this nation is trying to avoid all discussion of what they did to one another (aside from some *very belated* and *very weak* efforts to prosecute some of the high-level-murderers). It seems to me that there are a lot of people walking around who pulled a lot of triggers. Perhaps I need to dig deeper into Wikipedia to find out the current status of 'prosecutions'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)