Talk:Khmer Rouge

Archives:

• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 1
• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 2
• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 3
• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 4
• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 5
• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 6
• Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 7

Khmer Rouge vs. "Eastern Zone"

According to Kiernan and several other sources, a pro-Vietnamese faction of the Communist Party was in charge of "Eastern Zone" in Cambodia, and no genocide occurred there. When the Vietnamese moved in, it was in support of their Cambodian allies, who were at that time fighting a civil war against the Khmer Rouge. Should not this aspect be more thoroughly highlighted?

Also, the fact that Khmer Rouge was very racist against ethnic minorities is noted by Kiernan. This deserves mention. (Just a passer-by's remark)

This article is disturbing

Actually I want to say 'disgusting.'
Quote:

The Khmer Rouge's defenders have justified such actions by claiming that the country was on the verge of mass starvation as a result of U.S. bombing campaigns (figures for deaths vary considerably between 50,000 and 500,000 Cambodians), and that it was impossible to transport sufficient food to feed an urban population of between 2 and 3 million people. According to the Khmer Rouge's supporters this required 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.

1. The first part of this basically says: 'It's impossible to transport food to the people, so let's transport the people to the food'.
   • Yes it really makes sense that lacking the infrastructure to transport food, transporting people is plausible. No, not really.
     • Annoying sarcasm aside, transporting people is something you do once. Transporting food needs to be done repeatedly; thus there needs to be an infrastructure. Note that I in no way condone the actions of the Khmer Rouge. --Sunnan
2. Then it goes on to say that urban people are not 'self-sufficient.'
   • Really? New Yorkers, people living in Los Angeles, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing are not self sufficient? You could have fooled me. Are the editors of this article trying to state something about division of labor here that they're not happy with? Is that really appropriate?
     • No, New Yorkers, people living in Los Angeles, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Beijing are not self sufficient. There's considerable import of goods from the countryside and from other regions. I actually read the passage you where quoting ("ideologically reflected in the Maoist doctrine") as anti-Maoist. I guess people read things differently... --Sunnan
3. The non-apologetic use of 'forcible removal of people.'
   • There needs to be something here that says very clear and loudly that massive deportation of people is against human rights, and that no social agenda can justify this kind of inhumane government action.
     • For most people in the free world, the words "forcibly evacuating" are plenty damning in and of themselves. More is not needed if the goal is NPOV. --Sunnan (btw, I just discovered this page and I mean no disrespect to Ruy Lopez, Adam Carr and the others who quarrel over this. I was just annoyed with Bjorn's weird definition of POV/NPOV.)
   • Does that mean the massive deportation of people from the countryside to the cities, due to the US Air Force dropping 500,000 tons of bombs on the Cambodian countryside, is "very clear and loudly...against human rights" as well? Ruy Lopez 04:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
     • "Massive deportation"... There was no forcible "deportation" to the cities. And any impaired individual knows that the US air force went out of its way to follow the ROEs with regards to bombing Cambodia. CJK 20:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is disgusting and, that in my humble opinion, requires the creation of a unique kind of POV tag that clearly informes the reader of the twisted character of this horrible page. (Bjorn Tipling 06:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)).

In reply: There have been many months of argument and conflict over this article. If you have problems with it you need to say what they are rather than just use words like "disgusting" and "horrible." Adam 06:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you upgrade your browser? Do you not see a bulleted list? Do you not think those are reasons/examples? What did you think that is? A grocery list? (Bjorn Tipling 14:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

I no longer bother with people who think that vulgar sarcasm of that kind is a suitable means of debate. Adam 14:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see that this article is one of many in wikipedia that is permanently fastened to a state of unending despair, languishing in hopelessness, bound in steadfast chains by blindfolded editors who are themselves lost and do not know it. Any attempt to save it is fruitless. Not even an RFC can save this page. Nothing can, but at least you'll not be alone! There are many, many wikipedia pages that have been taken hostage by trolls who see criticism as a personal attack, agenda minded hobgoblins, and executive ogres who graduated from some obscure educational institution and have attributed themselves with omniscient authority to dictate what proper debate is, and what proper editing is. I shall leave this bucket of crabs dragging each other down trying to escape, unwatch the article, and hope that readers will see this page for what it is: another colossal failure of the wiki model. (Bjorn Tipling 15:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

I don't doubt that, given time and patience, the article can be written in a way that will be NPOV to all sides. I'm offended by your statements. You give me a headache. --Sunnan

choeu stek arom

I've searched for this phrase on a popular search engine but it only turned up this wikipedia article. How come? What's the source of this phrase? --Sunnan

How long has this been going on again?

i don't think we can keep this article consistent in its NPOV form until Ruy's banned from editting it and possibly other Communist/Cold War/U.S. foreign policy-related articles as well. Dr. Trey 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone know how to contact an admin? I suggest that all of us involved ask Ruy to stop on his talk page. I believe that if at least two of us do this, and this person continues to do this, we are on the path to getting him/her blocked. (Bjorn Tipling 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

Although on a personal level I think that my politics are different from Ruy's, I don't think that such extreme measures are in order. Wikipedia is a place for all people, if it weren't for the Ruy's this would be an extremely skewed encylopedia. What I haven't seen, and what I haven't been able to find, is the source for the statement that he is trying to insert into the article. Ruy, I'm sure you're reading this, could you please annotate that sentence (you know which one) so that I don't have to continue my search for your source material? Thanks. --Easter Monkey 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for all people, if it were, then there would be no admins, and there would be no block feature. Wikipedia is not a place for people who continually throw articles into edit wars, add lies, and those who exist on the fringe fanatical outskirts of ideology. It's not a place for people who are unwilling to stop reverting articles in the face of some amount of opposition. Wikipedia is meant to be informative, not inclusive, and it's not a soapbox from which people can shout out whatever they believe. Not all ideas are equal. (Bjorn Tipling 06:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

I have already annotated the reference before, but since you're asking me in all seriousness, instead of in a flip manner like CJK/TDC, I will cite my references again.

One is:

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.

This was cited back in Talk:Khmer_Rouge#US_involvement_in_1970_coup. Neither TDC nor CJK cares though - is a sock puppet really having an argument? CJK is a sock puppet. As soon as the account was created it immediately began an edit war with me on Vietnam War and other pages. Is it one of the users who has run afoul of me and has been banned - VeryVerily, TreyStone (known sock puppet user) --

listen kid, you need to make a coherent argument instead of bringing up irrelevant shit about other users. i haven't used a sock in about a year, so can the bullshit. Dr. Trey 10:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

etc.?  Who knows...

As far as Bjorn, the editing on this page has been going on over a year, he shows up today and within a few minutes is screaming about banning people and likewise, so I'm just tuning him out. I'm sure he knows next to nothing about the CPK, just like TDC and CJK. I'm much more well-read on Cambodia then Adam Carr, but at least he knows something about it, and may have even visitied there.

Ruy Lopez 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam Carr at Angkor Wat, Cambodia, January 2005

Being well-read is all very well, but if the sole purpose of your reading is to reinforce your pre-existing ideological views, you might as well stay ignorant. I recommend that Lopez go to Cambodia and talk to some ordinary Cambodians, as I did, about what his precious CPK did to their families (worker and peasant families as well as bourgeois), and go to the Tuol Sleng museum and the stupa of skulls at Cheuk Eng (I nearly threw up), and he might then be able to put his reading to some use. Adam 08:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I only make $7.25 an hour at my job, I don't think I will be trekking to Cambodia anytime soon, like those workers/peasants, I don't have the luxury the bourgeois have to travel around like that, and will have to rely on mostly bourgeois sources, including a handful of bourgeois radicals.

Adam Carr says once again that the CPK is some organization I have a personal and "precious" view of. I recently learned in following an ongoing ArbCom case that referring to someones personal views in article debates is something that carries no weight in offical Wikipedia rules. But beyond that, I don't know why it's always assumed I have this view or that view, not that it is supposed to have any bearing according to Wikipedia rules anyhow. Ruy Lopez 03:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you haven't been to Cambodia, for whatever reason, you therefore lack firsthand knowledge of what the Cambodian people have to say about the KR regime. That may not be your fault, but it remains a fact. So you should make at least an attempt to acknowledge that some people know more than you do, or than your "radical" print sources, safe in their university studies, do. As Chairman Mao says, "No investigation, no right to speak." Adam 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You know you sound pretty reasonable in the talk pages, why do you feel the need to delete sections of content without explanation and why do you feel the need to revert content that others don't think is appropriate. You know you can put some of this information into the article, you just have to qualify it appropriately and not make it become misleading. (Bjorn Tipling 06:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Because his "reasonable" persona is a facade for the fact that he is a dedicated communist, as is reflected in all his edits. Adam 08:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh right, Carr thinks I'm a member of the PLP or something. And with him speaking of "being there" to know things. Carr seems to have a view of the US that is "stuck in the sixties" - PL has been more-or-less defunct since June 21, 1969, when most of SDS marched out of the Chicago Coliseum because they were sick of having to deal with PLers. PLP doesn't even have an office any more, as it closed years ago, now the handful that remain have just a PO Box. Perhaps Carr thinks I'm a secret Illuminati member of the Freemasons, intent on overthrowing the Roman Catholic church as well. 共产党，像太阳，照到哪里哪里亮。哪里有了共产党，呼尔嗨哟，哪里人民得解放 Ruy Lopez 06:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You're making a straw man argument here. He never said you were part of any organization. He never said you were part of the PLP, and therefore, there's no need to imply he's off the mark by describing this organization and it's end in any way shape or form. It's totally irrelevant and does not discredit his argument. (Bjorn Tipling 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

If you had said "He did not say right here you were part of any organization...the PLP..." you would have been correct. But you did not say this, you said, "He never said you were part of any organization...the PLP..." This is incorrect, because he has said that. Have I mentioned here about the time I met a guy selling Challenge at a march? I forget... Ruy Lopez 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, all of the acrimonious debate aside, and maybe in my naivete I still believe in giving due time to all viewpoints (although of course there shouldn't be any viewpoints here on the wikipedia) but like I said, and I still maintain, wikipedia is for all people (even those with slanted viewpoints one way or the other. Because it is my unshakable opinion that we need all viewpoints, because don't you see? that's what makes this so great.) I do agree with you Bjorn, that there needs to be procedures in place for those who are disruptive, but differing points of view do not equate with disruption. Like I said, I have no doubt that if Ruy and I were to compare political affiliations we would never agree. So, on that note, let me ask some questions: Since I don't have access to his book, 1) Who is Sorpong Peou? 2) What kind of citation does Sorpong Peou give for the Samuel Thornton information? Was it an interview or something else? 3) Is the information provided by Thornton to Peou verifiable in other sources? 4) You mention that this is one of your sources, what are the others? Let me know and I promise that I at least will assume good faith and go from there. Thanks.

Oh, one other thing. I have tried to stay out of the active debate on this article until now, (you can check my contributions, yes I've only been contributing since August/September this year) so that I could see what the issues were. It seemed that now was a good a time as any to add my two cents. FYI, my credentials and knowledge of the KR only go so far as that Tuol Sleng is less then a five minute drive from my house. I admit that I have zero academic background in the history of Cambodia, only what I have read in the last 2.5 years that I've lived in Phnom Penh, and also, and I think most importantly, that I am interested in making sure that this article is as good and as accurate as it can be. --Easter Monkey 11:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for people who dump blatantly biased, whitewashing crap into previously well-written articles. I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if Ruy was doing something like this on the Adolf Hitler page.

Fact is, the KR are best known for presiding over mass starvation and death from overwork as a result of their extreme agrarian policies. It doesn't matter whether someone thinks that's an unfair viewpoint, that's what they're known for, and to leave it outta the intro is ridiculous, as everyone else here realizes.

I'm sure Ruy has a harsh proletarian job working anyway at McD... er nevermind. idon'tjudge Dr. Trey 22:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Easter Monkey, Ruy Lopez can't provide another source of decent credibility (actually, the first one does not have credibility either) because he is a blind anti-American communist propagandist. That might sound a bit harsh, but its true, as any respected user knows. Instead of responding to my questions that I posted a long time ago, he ignores them and spreads his bullshit propaganda about me being a sockpuppet (which he knows is false). Anybody who thinks that Ruy Lopez has contributed to NPOV here is therefore kidding themselves.

Getting to the substance of the issue, I would like to add a few other criticisms to the "evidence" presented:

1. Lopez calls Thornton a "naval intelligence officer", but on the article, acts like he's CIA.
2. He also added to the article "CIA agents". Who is this second person?
3. Thornton was reffering to a coup where Sihanouk would be assassinated. That did not happen, and he is still alive as I type this.
4. Thornton left the navy intelligence in 1969, according to Lopez. Yet the coup was in 1970. So he would not know what went forward.

CJK 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

CJK's characterisation of Lopez is quite correct. Most other projects of this nature would have banned him years ago, but I understand the ultruistic motivations of those who have decided that such a thing is not allowed. So we will just have to go reverting his bullshit until either he or we die of old age. Adam 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got it, there is obviously a great deal of history, stepped on toes, etc. that I am not going to pretend to understand. My wife is all into yoga, I've tried it but that crap doesn't work for me, but the mantra stuff seems to calm me down sometimes...:) Suffice it say that if Ruy Lopez is indeed an "anti-American communist", so be it, I would respectfully disagree, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that he has every right to be one if he so chooses. Again, believe me, my own political leanings could not be more different, but our own personal politics should not be an issue in a factual account of what happened.

If Lopez was just an "anti-American communist" I would be OK, however he is more than that. He is an outright liar and a fraud, a liar because of his false accusations on a personal and historical level, a fraud because of his inability to answer the questions or cite decent sources. CJK 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no "disagreement" about this. Whether or not Lopez is personally a communist, he spends a lotta time on wik making sure nothing bad's said about Uncle Joe, Uncle Ho, Our Dear Leader...you name it Dr. Trey 22:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, my original questions about the Sorpong Peou piece still stand, but here is one other: Has the CIA or any other U.S. government organization actually admitted, whether explicitly or implicitly, through whatever means, declassified documents, etc. that they were involved in a) the Lon Nol coup, or b) an assasination attempt of Sihanouk. It's not outside the realm of possibilities that either a) and/or b) might indeed be true. I am an American and a patriot, but not a blind patriot either. Involvement in assasination attempts and inciting coups are something that the U.S. government has been involved with in the past, and it has been something that they have admitted to (see Church Committee) of course not without someone asking first. And by asking I mean that litigation and congressional hearings were involved. But the point is that it is a matter of historical record that the USG has indeed been involved in these things. But in order to include such statements in this particular article, we have a clear need to have iron-clad sources. My problem is with statements such as "almost all academics agree" that the U.S. was involved. Such statements are by definition POV and should not be included as sources. Yes, again, all academics might agree about what is in fact ultimately true, but inclusion on that basis alone is unacceptable. thanks. --Easter Monkey 02:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The US government has not provided any declassified documents whatsoever that they were involved in the coup, because they weren't. Check on this if you don't believe me. I don't believe Lopez will answer any of the questions here that will cast doubt on his agenda.

Of course, the real reason there was a coup was because of Sihanouk's toleration of the thousands of communist Vietnamese troops stationed in Cambodia which made Sihanouk look too soft on the communists. CJK 21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well you know I did just come onto the article one day recently while searching for information about Khmer Rouge and found this horrible page (I'm sorry to be so crude about it, I know now that you guys have worked hard on it for some time and I don't mean to take away from that - but the article is terrible as everyone I have shown it to has thought so too). I know I haven't been here as long as many of you have. I thought maybe it was taken hostage in the same way that the torture page had been a few months ago and so I just wanted to help, because I want Wikipedia to be a better thing. I was kind of coarse in my reply to Adam a few weeks ago, and I apologize because at the moment I was just fed up with the politics of it all.

Now I understand the reasons of why you don't want to block Ruy, but I don't think this will lead to a better page. I don't believe we're here to be considerate of other people's feelings, I think there is a greater objective, a credible Wikipedia.(Bjorn Tipling 03:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

The amusing thing about this is I have an ironclad US intelligence source, and I'm not even saying what he said is true, I'm just quoting him, but this is pulled out. Compare that to the completely unsourced fantasies of a "Khmer Rouge genocide" which are trying to be propped up here, an unsourced house of cards, sort of like Christian faith, that falls apart when probed slightly, making the defenders of the faith that much more viligant. Ruy Lopez 21:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna let your comment speak for itslef. CJK 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

well i'll grant Ruy that it wasn't a genocide -- genocide implies intent. what it was was a blind radical communist ideology (lot more blind than most Christians i know) that's implementation resulted in the death of one-fourth of the Cambodian population. Dr. Trey 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• I normally revert Lopez's edits on sight, but if he has a source for his quote about US involvement in the coup then it should be included with the proper citation.
• Lopez should note that the article doesn't accuse the KR of "genocide" (or it didn't the last time I looked, and I have removed the word at least twice). It accuses them of mass murder, which is one of the most exhaustively documented facts in modern history. Adam 02:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • if he has a source for his quote about US involvement in the coup then it should be included with the proper citation. - what? I posted the source months ago, and have just reposted it once again in this section. For the third time, the source is Samuel Thornton, an American who worked from May 1968 to May 1969 as an intelligence specialist at the US Navy Command in Saigon. I wrote this at the top of this section, as well as several sections ago. Ruy Lopez 02:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think an actual citation or link is required. Adam 02:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What did I say, it is already on this page twice. Intervention and Change in Cambodia: Towards Democracy? by Sorpong Peou p. 126.

Easter Monkey, do you see how this goes on and on and on? I've spent hours trying to put this sentence in. Even after all of this, they're not going to let me put the sentence in. Meanwhile, when I try to remove unsourced fantasy like "In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread.", of course that never happens. By they I mean Adam Carr and the sock puppet peanut gallery. Ruy Lopez 03:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ya think you gain credibility by lying about shit Ruy? Dr. Trey 05:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a peanut, I'm an almond. Ruy, let's try this, write the information that you want to include in the article here, and we'll discuss how to include in the article in a way that everyone, or at least most people agree to. (Bjorn Tipling 03:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Trey, you are banned for a year from editing articles. Which one of us has no credibility? Ruy Lopez 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

i don't know, i don't see how that's relevant to constantly posting bullshit about your little imaginary "sockpuppet" brigade. separate users do actually oppose the crap you dump in this project, believeitornot Dr. Trey 07:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Found this on google with search string of "Samuel Thornton Cambodia"

Folks, found this. Seymour Hersh is a pulitzer prize winning journalist (for his work on reporting the My Lai Massacre...on a side note, there's one for you Ruy, an incident with American soldiers involved called a massacre...). Bjorn, I don't think your current edit will work, it's to weasly (Some critics have speculated is the very definition of weasel wording). Ruy, I haven't found the Sorpong Peou ref. yet in its entirety (Peou is a professor at the Sophia University in Tokyo, by the way, looked him up too), but from the Hersh book it looks like if we go with that one we would not have a reasonable expectation that we can put in exactly "CIA" and have it be truthful, yet. I will dig some more, but the wording that I could live with would read something like this: "Sources within the American intelligence community at the time have admitted to having made plans for a coup, and an assasination." Not those words exactly, but I'm just thinking of this very quickly. Please let me know. Thanks. --Easter Monkey 15:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, good work. Looks legit. I wasn't trying to be weasily, just trying to find an acceptable compromise. Creating an article for Ruy's source would also go a long way to making it more acceptable (as long as that article has acceptable sources ;P). As for your discovery - if there's a source for it I'm down with it, but I think there needs to be something there too that describes the unpopularity of the idea. (Bjorn Tipling 18:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Bjorn's wording is pretty accurate, but Samuel Thornton simply isn't notable enough to be mentioned, IMO. My previous questions regarding this source still stand, even though Lopez won't answer them. I mean, if this one guy is the primary source 35 years after the coup (as indicated by Lopez on Easter Monkey's talk page) I'm going to have a tough time taking any of this coup stuff seriously. CJK 20:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Thornton was a US intelligence officer in Indochina from 1968 until 1969. If he is not notable, I wonder who would be a "notable" source who would have information of this kind. Like many times before, you don't even have an argument here. Ruy Lopez 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course, days after the coup, the US invaded Cambodia (unless you consider the invitation by one of the governments to make it a non-invasion - but then you'd have to modify the Afghanistan, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia articles). But I guess that's just a coincidence Ruy Lopez 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because he was an intelligence officer doesn't mean he knew anything about what was going on. Maybe he was assigned to do cartography or something else totally unrelated. If he was in Naval intelligence then more than likely he had no idea what the CIA was doing. Those are two different organizations and I doubt they collaborate much. Who knows if he's telling the truth. Maybe he wasn't even on assignment. What information other than that he was in intelligence and in the area can you provide, Ruy, to assure us of the credibility and accuracy of this source? (Bjorn Tipling 01:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

The "invasion of Cambodia" example is laughable. First, it occured 2 months after the coup, not "days". Second, US penetration of Cambodia amounted to a tiny border raid over in 2 months. So I suggest that Ruy should stop drinking the Chomsky-aid and learn a little history or common sense before he makes his outrageous accusations. If he can't answer the questions, I will continue to remaove what amounts to vandalism in the article. CJK 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying it happened in days as well - 60 days. The reason the US invasion only went several miles into Cambodia is because the war spread not only from Vietnam to Cambodia, but back to the US as well. The US government had to kill four students at Kent State protesting the invasion and two students at Jackson state. The government thought this would shut down the students and workers who were against the war in the US, but after the US government murdered six or more people protesting Cambodia's invasion, what happened is almost every college campus in the US was shut down and taken over by the students. The US government didn't want a repeat of May 1968. Ruy Lopez 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruy has avoided personal attacks, can't the rest of us do that too? If there are credible sources for US involvment in Cambodian politics, then I think it should be mentioned. One thing I wonder though is how influential the US involvement could have been. The US has a history of helping rebel groups overthrow governments (helped U.S. friendly republicans overthrow the Kingdom of Hawai'i with U.S. Marines, help Philipines run out Spanish - but then took control itself, and also in South America, a failed attempt in Cuba for examples) so it's not as if it's so a ridiculous of an idea that the US might have been involved. But for us to include it in the article really we need a couple of things:

1. Multiple, reliable, and unconnected sources. (And we need lots of information about these sources).
2. Knowledge of the extent of possible U.S. involvement. If just say 'the US was involved' then it leaves people guessing as to how involved the country was. Most people will likely assume that the entire thing was orchestrated by the CIA when maybe all they did was provide some intelligence to the leaders of the coup or maybe just some training. We just need more information before we can put this in the article. I don't have a problem with truth, Ruy and Eastermonkey, no matter how unpopular it may be. I do have a problem with unfounded and unsupported conspiracies put in the article because you might be willing to quickly jump to conclusions because of a distaste for the US Government. We just need more information. One vague source in 'intelligence' (did he mop the floors there?) is not good enough - there is an engineer who worked with the U.S. Air Force at Groom Lake in Nevada who says the Air Force had extra-terrestrial equipment, are we to throw out conventional wisdom to belive this one person? No. (Bjorn Tipling 19:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Ruy has avoided personal attacks, can't the rest of us do that too? What? You don't think accusing me of sockpuppetry is a "personal attack"? Or how about calling us a "peanut gallery"? Whatever the case, we are wasting are time here. If Lopez knew any more, he would have said so by now and answered the questions posted a couple days ago. CJK 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

not widely supported

"not widely supported" (the theory of US involvement in the coup) makes it sound like only a fringe thinks this. But this is to the contrary, the establishment Cambodia scholars in the US like Chandler and Kiernan talk about the US involvement in the coup. I'm not that hung up on the wording, but there is a significant amount of people accept it. Even Adam Carr, who has been reverting me here for a year, doesn't have much trouble accepting it. I don't mind if it is mentioned some doubt this happened, but I think the view that the US probably had something to do with the coup is widespread, not a small or fringe group. I'm not hung up on the wording too much, other than this, I'm not sure exactly what the wording should be, you can say something like "some believe the US was involved, some don't" if you don't like my wording, that's fine. But I don't want wording like the theory is a fringe one or a small group of some people who think this, because it isn't. Ruy Lopez 22:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with how you've changed the wording. I think it's even better. Also, if established US scholars believe that the US was involved in the coup, then I think you should add that as well, but wording it carefully and adding sources. Since you have their names, maybe you can reference some of their publications that cite this information? (Bjorn Tipling 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

I don't like putting anything up that I don't have rock solid as even my rock solid stuff is picked apart by some contributors. So I'll just be general. Chandler talks about one CIA agent who was in contact with Sirik Matak (who was like #2 to Lon Nol in terms of the coup). Kiernan talks about the role of the US Special Forces. As I said, these are establishment historians whose main thing is banging the nonsenical drum of "genocide" in Cambodia. But even they talk about this. I guess this will be the part of the article I'm concentrating on at the moment. There are a lot of references to US involvement in the coup around, I guess I'll be digging them up. I have other sources at hand, but Thornton is the best one, and I think Kiernan and Chandler are good as well although I have to go over all of their stuff, read stuff, check sources and so forth. There's a lot connecting US military and/or intelligence to Sirik Matak, Sihanouk says they were in contact with Lon Nol as well, but even though Sihanouk fought the communists until 1970, on Wikipedia or whatever I guess Thornton, Kiernan and Chandler are more credible because for one thing they're white Western professionals and sources who don't fit that profile are looked at less credibly by many (not by myself of course). And they're looked on as more serious sources for other reasons as well. Ruy Lopez 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No offence Ruy, but there were a lot of people who died horribly in Cambodia. It's not a nonsensical drum, although I don't know if I would call it genocide, but there was massive murder and other crimes against humanity taking place. The Khmer Rouge is very much responsible for what happened there, although I wont say that they're solely responsible. Also the ethnicity and race of the professors or whatever sources you have, have nothing to do their credibility, and I doubt there are many people editing this article that think so. Credibility is arrived through a trusted system with ethical standards and peer review and the American academic system is such a system. I'm not saying that it does not have it's faults or a sketchy history, but it's better than relying on rouge people who may have mental disorders or god knows what or just want attention. There are other institutions that are also largely credible. Records from organization, transactions, written or otherwise recorded witness testimony, photographs, those are credible. We're not creating an analysis, we're trying to provide factual information. (Bjorn Tipling 02:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

You say this, then you talk about the "Khmer Rouge", an organization that does not exist. In fact, this article alternatively uses the phrase "Khmer Rouge" to refer to: a political party (Communist Party of Kampuchea), a coalition of political parties, an army (the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces), as well as more than one government (one headed by Prince Sihanouk). This article provides factual information not analysis? How about this - "According to the Khmer Rouge's supporters this required 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." Is that fact or analysis? If this article had facts instead of people screaming in hysterics, it would fall apart in the same manner that logic and facts would fold the house of cards that is Christianity and people screaming about some Jew with magic powers 2000 years ago came back from the dead and that type of stuff. Then there's Adam Carr's graph of deaths in Cambodia. Notice how the drop only exists from 1975-1979, where on the chart are the hundreds of thousands who died when the US Air Force carpet bombed Cambodia in 1973? The answer is simple - those deaths were simply pushed forward two to six years. Carr is covering up for the US massacre of Cambodians. Ruy Lopez 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You quoted a phrase that is in this article that I absolutely hate. If you look at this, you'll see that I specifically quoted the same passage you did and pointed out how I thought it did not belong in this article. The 'Khmer Rouge' is a communist movement that was ruled by Pol Pot. This is what my encyclopedia (Merriam-Webster) says about it:

Radical communist movement that ruled Cambodia 1975-79. The Khmer Rouge, under the leadership of Pol Pot, opposed the government of the popular Norodom Sihanouk. They gained support after Sihanouk was toppled by Lon Nol (1970) and after U.S. forces bombed the countryside in the early 1970s. In 1975 the Khmer Rouge ousted Lon Nol. Their extraordinarily brutal regime led to deaths from starvation, hardship, and executions that may have reached 2 million. Overthrown in 1979 by the Vietnamese, they retreated to remote areas and continued their struggle for power in Cambodia. The last Khmer Rouge guerrillas surrendered in 1998.

Not how this 'establishment' encyclopedia does not say that genocide occured, and it also notes U.S. involvement. I can't link to this information because it's behind a pay-for subscription site. The Khmer Rouge did exist, but that doesn't mean you don't have a point about how this article has made mistakes. I think we should begin talking about steps to put together a consensus as to how to make this article NPOV. We should assume good faith in each other stop trying to point out how one or the other person is fanatical. I was mistaken to call for your blocking, you do seem reasonable right now so why don't we talk about what needs to change. (Bjorn Tipling 04:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)).

Is there any counter-evidence against the fact that the KR distrusted the urban population? And you can't "assume good faith" with this kid's track record. Seriously, look at his edits sometime. And yeah Ruy, before you say it, I know I got banned, but I'd rather get blocked for edit warring than serving as a full-time commapologist. Dr. Trey 04:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Trey, when Ruy said that you had been blocked I went through the entire history of your messages (because it was pretty interesting). Man, I learned a lot about Wikipedia by having done that. Yes, we have to assume good faith, Trey. I'm even willing to assume good faith in you, but you have to stop the name calling. You should really read the article again. I think we are all willing to accept the truth, even if it happens to not be in favor of whatever particular ideology we hold dear? I just want this article to stop being terrible, and that's going to happen. (Bjorn Tipling 04:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

This is not a matter of ideology -- at least on the side of those who've been rving Ruy. Other than the CIA ref., his edits have all been whitewash.

Once again, exactly where is this supposed "CIA ref"? CJK 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And why do you keep saying the article's terrible, it's fine so far as I can tell, other than the kid who keeps removing the most important facts from the intro. Dr. Trey 05:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there's stuff I personally don't like in it. Like the paragraph that begins with Khmer Rouge's defenders have justified such actions... but my biggest beef is the NPOV tag, let's get rid of whatever is NPOV in here so we can get rid of the tag. (Bjorn Tipling 05:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

that para may be poorly worded, but it's important to note the fact that certain leftist intellectuals attempted to portray the evacuation as completely necessary. it's also important to mention that the move was ideological in nature, as the KR had destroyed towns (villages? it's in that Mekong Delta link) and evacuated their inhabitants pre-1975. Stoned Trey 06:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an article about Khmer Rouge, not 'leftist intellectuals.' The bit about the move should maybe have it's own section if it's notable enough, but it should be supported with sources and be NPOV. (Bjorn Tipling 08:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

fine, i'm sure i can back it with a Chomsky quote from that book he wrote. Stoned Trey 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see anything wrong with that part, particularly since the KR are directly contradicted further along. The NPOV tag was placed there so Lopez wouldn't edit the article for the rest of the year, a promise which has not been kept. And I still don't think that Thornton is important enough to be in the article, unless we know more about him. CJK 18:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how we can "assume good faith" with this Ruy Lopez guy if all he can do is rant on and on about imaginary sockpuppets, imaginary CIA operations, US bombings, and how he doesn't like white, western, Christians. Its pretty disgusting that we have to put up with this utter crap. CJK 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving toward NPOV

Full disclosure: I want to explain my ideological background - I'm pro-capitalist American, albeit a social democratic version of it with universal health care and open borders and less corporate welfare, and a financial safety net for the most unfortunate Americans. I don't believe in communism or fascism because the imagined 'greater good' should never take precedence over the human rights of individuals. I'm probably just left-of-center in American politics, but I'm no Democrat. Why do I disclose this? Because I want this article to be NPOV and because I want everyone to assume good faith. It seems to me that everyone that has been active in the last few weeks has been pushing POV of some kind or other and many of us edit controversial topics regularly:
CJK Ruy Lopez Trey Stone Adam Carr Easter Monkey me
The first three in that list have been focusing heavily on articles that involve communism, and it's obvious that you guys have a point of view that you don't want buried by the other. That's fine. As for Ruy Lopez, I made a terrible mistake out of ignorance calling for him to be blocked. I just went through his entire edit history on Khmer Rouge and a couple of things became clear to me as to what Ruy has been doing:

1. He's toned down the violence of Khmer Rouge
2. He wants the name of the article to reflect what the group called itself.
3. He wants to remove the speculation and theories for the group's actions.

Sockpuppet accusations aside, he has been pretty civil on the talk page. On the points that he's made the first I disagree with. This group is known for the violence that occurred in Cambodia while it was in power, and I believe that should stay. His argument that the US should likewise reflect all the violence it has committed on its page is not a great argument as the US has more historical depth, while this group is almost solely notorious because of the violence that occurred.

As for the name change, I think he has a good point. Nazi party redirects to National Socialist German Workers Party. If the name of the group wasn't Khmer Rouge, then it should redirect to the factually correct name, not the most popular name.

As for the final part, I tend to agree with Ruy on this too. This article isn't about leftist intellectuals, it's not about communism, it's about a specific political power that is notorious for violence and failure (for whatever reason). I don't think vague speculation should be in the article, it's unproven and it's POV-pushing in my opinion. Let's just say what happened and let people make up their own minds. Links to articles that explain ideas like this could be a compromise. I'm not saying Ruy is an angel here, he's made some pretty far off the wall comments about race and religion that, for me reveal a trace of insensitivity and naivety, but he's been courageous in fighting the anti-communist propaganda that this article has been infused with (read the early versions of this article to see what I'm talking about). Wikipedia is not meant to be anti or pro communism, it's meant to be NPOV. Roy has not been NPOV, and it's obvious he cares about communism, but he has been reasonable when given the chance (He didn't just revert my rewording). I know I'm new to this page and maybe that's good, being an outsider and all. What do you people think? (Bjorn Tipling 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

The problem with making it "Communist Party of Kampuchea" is that the organization is universally known as the Khmer Rouge. I don't know the specifics of wiki naming conventions but I'm pretty certain this's standard. I wouldn't take Ruy's complaints about the name seriously -- he thinks it's some kind of "slander" -- why I don't know, but anyway.

I would support moving NSGWP to Nazi Party, unless there is a naming convention that goes against this.

And please stop asking for sensitivity toward Ruy's "objections." I realize you're a new user (I think so at least) but his POV apologetics are well-documented. Stoned Trey 08:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

While I do not care what the name is called, I do care about the whitewashing that goes into the article. And to suggest that we can "move toward NPOV" after years of conflict is somewhat wishful thinking. Going through the archives tells me that Lopez, like most Stalinist/Stalinist apologists, is not serious about negotiating. He simply walks in, rants, throws out a view with scant evidence, and when questioned rants some more, then leaves for a while hoping we get tired of all this eventually. And I can't say it has not been without success, just look at the archives. So Ruy Lopez can't hope to defeat everyone here on an intellectual level. Rather he hopes to divide us and wear us down until we give up. As for comparing our personal biases, I would say that we have been fairly reasonable with keeping our own POV out of articles. Adam has been reasonable, though is probably frustrated with this nonsense. Trey is currently banned for alleged POV pushing, but I think anyone can see that he has been much more even-handed than Lopez, who denies that a Khmer Rouge genocide occured, who thinks that there were free Vietnamese elections in 1976, that there were free elections in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, that West Germany was basically run by unreformed Nazis, that the 9/11 attacks were justified, finds Stalin's crimes questionable, must I go on? Can you imagine what would happen if a rightist user whitewashed the crimes of Hitler and other right wing dictators? They would be banned. Not so with Lopez. Simply, no one wants to arbitrate this guy for whatever reason, even though it would be more than justifiable.

A compromise here simply will not happen, as any "compromise" to Lopez involves ignoring the Khmer Rouge while vastly exaggerating the scale of American bomb damages. In Lopez's world, the US can do no right. Therefore, if he has done any "courageous actions" it is certainly not here and now. CJK 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez still won't answer the questions

Ruy Lopez still is reverting the article to include Samuel Thornton, attach the NPOV tag when no debate is going on, and is censoring links he doesn't like. So I'm going to repeat the questions: Why is Thornton so notable? What did he do in the intelligence business? Was he some average Joe guy or a top official? What "information" has he came forward with apart from his own (unverifiable) claims? Why do such shaky allegations have to be in an article that isn't even about the Cambodian coup? Hopefully, we can settle this mess if given a straight answer. CJK 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting... CJK 00:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

After looking into Thornton, the only reference I can find is two sentences in the book Lopez previously cited. TDC 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing's for sure, calling him an officer is definitely a misrepresentation of who he is/was. From the ref. material cited he is a yeoman, an enlisted man. An intelligence specialist, perhaps, but not an officer, (it's an important distinction). --Easter Monkey 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess we're just gonna revert this forever if he can't answer the questions. CJK 20:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag has been on this page for weeks, something suggested by a moderator. Despite all the contention, you are trying to take it off. Also, you have done absolutely no research on the Khmer Rouge, you simply ask me to repeat the same thing over and over again. All of this was discussed weeks ago. Ruy Lopez 21:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Another non-response. Since no one is engaging in an active debate, the NPOV tag is unjustified. CJK 22:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Occurs to me that a couple of folks on both sides are of the megalomaniacal POV (MPOV) mindset ...the meta-wiki article made me laugh anyway --Easter Monkey 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Asking a simple question is not "maniacal". To avoid anwering it is. I have responded to everything. Ruy has not, just as I had predicted. CJK 19:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Things seemed to have calmed down

And that's good! (Bjorn Tipling 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Perhaps the block on Lopez has something to do with it. He probably won't be showing if he actually has to justify himself. CJK 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He was blocked? I don't see anything on his talk page about it. He's still editing [1] (Bjorn Tipling 04:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

He was blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system". CJK 23:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevent critic of Michael Vickery's methodology

The Genocide in Cambodia, 1975-79, by Ben Kiernan; Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 22, 1990

The article examines the Statistics on the Cham, but also an overview of the total population, statistics etc. The author answers to Vickery. Seems that I am not the only that accused Vickery of being a genocide denialist, since that is what the answer clearly imply. Fad (ix) 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin Influences?

Sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris0 (talk • contribs)

What does this mean?

" Family relationships were also banned, and family members could be put to death for communicating with each other." 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harris0 (talk • contribs)

I'm a bit nonplussed. What do you mean by "what does this mean"? Family relationships were banned, husbands and wifes were split up, children taken from their parents. If they tried to communicate with each other and got caught doing or trying to do so they were imprisoned or killed on the spot. Also, imprisonment usually meant death. Seems very clear to me. Please explain what it is that you have a problem understanding. --Easter Monkey 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very broad statement. All family relationships were banned? 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Ruy Lopez has once again inserted the source without anwering any questions as to who exactly Thornton was and how important he was and why his word should be taken at face value. CJK 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have answered this question at great length earlier on this discussion page. Ruy Lopez 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to SUMMARIZE it below. Say, a paragraph. Clearly state who the fellow is and your source for the information. A2Kafir 15:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And don't forget:

1. Thornton was reffering to a coup where Sihanouk would be assassinated. That did not happen, and he is still alive as I type this. 2. Thornton left the navy intelligence in 1969, according to Lopez. Yet the coup was in 1970. So he would not know what went forward. 3. Why does his word deserve any publicity if he hasn't any evidence to support it and is not in a prominent position? CJK 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)