Talk:Pol Pot

Idealism

"This, combined with the fact that Pol Pot and most of the other senior party members themselves had no working class experience (unlike Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh) led to an idealisation of peasant life in Cambodian Communism."

This comes from the section titled "Democratic Kampuchea." It does not seem to me that the term idealisation is being used precisely here, i.e. the question is open as to whether it is meant to stand in opposition to materialism, pragmatism, etc.

Further, if they just ment that peasants had the best lives, then it seems like a perfectly tenable argument to make from a Marxist perspective, since for Marx they are the ones who have the true power - Capitalists depend on them.

Also, it is irrelevant that Pol Pot and the other leaders had no working class experience. They are approaching the subject from a 'grand scheme' perspective. The peasants are not in the worst position in society just because they think they are.

This article is full of informal fallacies and bias and it go a long way to solving that problem if the theory and practice were separated. It might be that his theory was correct, but he went about implementing it the wrong way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.143.97 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am only speaking to your objection of the use of the word "idealisation" and not to your other comments: This seems to be a semantic misunderstanding. I think from the text you've referenced that whoever wrote it did not mean to use "idealisation" to describe the construction of a conception of Cambodian peasant life which is skewed to be in line with the Idealist Movements or Philosophies - as you seem to assert - but rather that the editor meant to use it for its actual meaning, "to make something more ideal"; since some people's ideals do not necessarily conform to reality, idealisation is often used to denote the process by with poorly informed people, or people who simply biased (whether by passion for a topic, personal history, or something else entirely) assign unrealistic characteristics to elements in their environment. To speak more directly, the argument presented by the author of the text you referenced above seems to be that since "Pol Pot and most of the other senior party members had no working class experience" - according to this account - that it would follow that their ideal conception of peasant life in Cambodia was untempered by any knowledge of the practical realities of said life, and therefore was not tenable in practice. Please also note that it is uncommon in English usage to denote acclimation with Idealist values or philosophies with the word "idealise", which instead is used to mean "to see envision in a more perfect form than it is", and as a corallary, as I believe is the case here, "to draw more upon wishful thinking (ideals) than reality" (meaning that envisioning this "more perfect" version of the element in question is not accompanied by changing the element to match the vision); I am sure you will agree that latter meaning of idealisation isn't expressive of the tenets of Idealism (feel free to do some research on Idealism if you are unsure of what it actually is). Also, in a situation where an editor wanted to say that something was being altered to more closely conform to the tenets of Idealism, "Idealisation", with an uppercase "I" would be used instead of a lowercase as with the above referenced text; this capitalisation denotes the use of Idealism to denote a formal entity, such as a movement, period, or system of thought. I've tried to be fairly explicit and exhaustive. Hope it helps.  :]

He sounds like a primitivist to me

Though somewhat influenced by Maoism. --Kelt65 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How can the Khmer Rouge be Maoist?

It is widely known that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rough rounded up tens of thousands Vietnamese and Chinese civilians and intellectuals who lived in Cambodia. I find it very strange that Pol Pot was considered "Maoist" yet he killed so many supposedly "Maoist" people during his reign. That's quite contradicting.--Secret Agent Man 03:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The VCP and Ho Chi Minh were much more Stalinist than Maoist. In fact I wouldn't call them Maoist at all -- they were supported by the USSR and opposed by China post-1975. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)

I concur with this. The purpose of reading an article here is to discover facts, not opinions. Is there EVIDENCE for US support of Pol Pot before '78? Is there EVIDENCE that people such as Chomsky were pro-Khmer Rouge before PP came to power? In either case, are we saying that supporting an individual before he comes to power (for whatever reason) makes one directly responsibly for the crimes he commits? That is, did US support for Stalin from 1941 to 45 make Roosevelt responsible for everything the Soviets did in Eastern Europe after WW2?

Kiernan's book (The Pol Pot Regime) details out how the Khmer Rouge tried to preserve relations with the PRC while pretty much pissing everyone else off.... I am afraid I do not have a copy, so I am unable to furnish qoutes for the article. I would appreciate it someone could do so... With that being said, I really hope this article can be "fancyied" up since it deals with an important aspect of history. ---Timber Rattlesnake

The Khmer Rouge were apparently very ungrateful to Mao for propelling them to power. In "Mao: The Unknown Story", Jung Chang and Jon Halliday highlight the case of a Khmer Rouge politician who openly praised Mao, suggesting the Khmer Rouge had been influenced by his ideas. For this, he was denounced as an "antique bastard", and tortured to death. The Khmer Rouge statement at the time also denounced Mao (although he was dead by this point). So it can at least be said the Khmer Rouge never considered themselves to be Maoist.

"This, combined with the fact that Pol Pot and most of the other senior party members themselves had no working class experience (unlike Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh) led to an idealisation of peasant life in Cambodian Communism." Where does the writer get the idea that Mao had woking class experience? He was from the countryside and never worked in a factory.Zotlan

---

'about a million Cambodians found death by execution and forced labour'

Is this an accepted number? I've heared about 500.000, more or less equal to the casualties from American bombings, a few years earlier.

Estimates I've read range from a low of 900,000 to a high of 2 million. Ed Poor

I've read from 1-3 million. No matter the number, it's going to be hard because nobody kept records like Hitler or even close. But to popular belief it is no less than 1 million, but possibly more than 3 million.

---

The Vietnamese installed a puppet government of Khmer Rouge who had fled to Vietnam to avoid the purges, but Pol Pot kept fighting from his base on the Thai border, again supported by China, Thailand and the US.

Was Pol Pot actually supported by the US? I can't make sense of this sentence. -- GayCom

I I remember correctly, the answer is yes. The US supported Pol Pot in his fight against (also Communist) Vietnam. Andre Engels

Yes, the U.S. was directly supporting Pol Pot even WHILE he was executing a large proportion of Cambodians, and the U.S. government was quite aware of this. It is one of the worst, bloodiest blots on United States foreign policy. --John Knouse

The text that is being discussed reads again supported by ... the US. Higher up the article it has (unusually) been found necessary to specifically assert that the US was anti-communist. The US asserted that its bombings were in support of, or were sanctioned by, the Lon Nol government which was opposed to Pol Pot (and Sihanouk). The use of the word again therefore looks like an attempt to smuggle Chomsky's thesis past NPOV. A comparison of this article with those for History of Cambodia and Khmer Rouge is illuminating. -- Alan Peakall 18:36 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

I can't tell if this article is correct or is some kind of a whitewash. Several phrases have the ring of propaganda. I'm tempted to move the whole thing to talk and request everyone to start over! --Ed Poor

Ed, where do you see the whitewash? This paragraph seems to be quite clear:

"Following the fall of Phnom Penh, politicians and bureaucrats were killed, all other inhabitants were driven out of the city into the countryside, where they were forced to do physical labour. Phnom Penh was turned into a ghost city, and many died of starvation, illnesses or execution. Education, religion, private possessions and families were abolished. Pol Pot became paranoid, and saw internal and external (Vietnamese) plots everywhere. Enormous numbers of suspects were tortured and killed." That seems about as clear as possible about the horrors that resulted from his rule. soulpatch

For the record, let me begin by saying that I happen to think that the word genocide is appropriate when describing what was inflicted on Cambodia by Pol Pot. But we have to be consistent here. On the one hand, is it perfectly legitimate to use what some might describe as an emotionally charged label like "genocide" without qualification to describe the actions of political rulers (like Pol Pot), but on the other hand it isn't acceptable to use the word "torture" to describe beatings, sleep deprivation, and witholding of pain medication, because it is an emotionally charged label and we we should let people decide for themselves whether those activities constitute torture rather than telling them? Can we tell the readers when something constitutes genocide, but we can't tell the readers when something constitutes torture? Out of consistency, since it is apparently disallowed to describe anything as "torture" in this encylopedia, I have modified the referenct to genocide by Pol Pot to make it clear that human rights activists consider it genocide. soulpatch

Oh yeah, I forgot. The US and the Khmer Rouge are comparable so the same standards apply. My bad. --mav

Your sarcastic response doesn't bother to address the point that I made. The question is whether we are going to have a consistent policy on the use of words to describe atrocities in this encylopedia. You yourself said elsewhere that we should not characterize something as "torture" in this encylopedia, since that would be telling people what to think, and instead we should let them decide for themselves whether an act is one of torture. So this same standard should also apply towards the use of the word "genocide". soulpatch

What the CIA has done is in the gray area as far as I am concerned (like most of the stuff they do and have done). Now if they pulled out the fingernails of the detainees and made them eat their own feces then that is obviously torture. Likewise the directed mass murder of millions of people can be, without much controversy, labled as genocide. BTW, I am a liberal who hates to have to defend Bubba and his posse of cowboys while my rights as a US citizen are degraded for so-called security purposes. But I will not at the same time sit idly by while some people exaggerate the facts. --mav

Well, some of the very activities that the CIA has done according to the Post investigation are described further down in the torture article as bullet-point examples of what constitutes torture (beatings, for example), so I am wondering how we can cite those examples of CIA activity at one point while tiptoeing around the word "torture" even though the article's definition includes them as examples of torture. Do we change the definition? And I might add that there actually is some dispute about the meaning of the word "genocide" in this encyclopedia, where it was debated at one point over whether the term "genocide" applied only to ethnically-based slaughter or also to other types of mass murder. There is actually controversy with just about any emotionally charged label, whether it be torture or genocide or anything else. It seems to me that if we can settle on a definition, we should use it. If you think that the CIA activities are not torture or are in a gray area, it might benefit the article to lay out in detail what you consider to be unquestionable acts of torture versus those that are borderline, and that can be hashed out and discussed in detail in the torture article's talk page, in some attempt at working out a definition. My concern is that we don't apply a double standard here, where actions by the US are whitewashed and labels that we would apply to countries the US doesn't like are never used to describe US activities. soulpatch

I'll take a look at the torture article. There is a whole continuum of severity involved in "beatings" though. I got beat-up rather severely once but I wouldn't call that "torture" at all. Torture is inflicting unbearable physical pain with some goal in mind - even if that goal is simply to cause unbearable pain. So simply beating somebody up isn't necessarily torture. --mav

I am curious if your definition of torture is universally accepted by human rights organizations. I honestly don't know what these organizations would say on the subject. I would say that I consider your definition to be more limited than my own. I do view beatings of prisoners to be a form of torture. Obviously it is not as elaborate as, say, electric shocks, removing skin or nails, or other such actions, but I think the unbearable thing is not easy to define, since that is subjective (one person may have more tolerance for certain kinds of pain than others). Perhaps we should consult the definitions from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations. soulpatch

---

I'm not sure about the purpose of the new paragraph about the US and Pol Pot. The same point is essentially made earlier in the same article, in the paragraph that reads:

Prior to 1970, the Khmer Rouge was an insignificant factor in Cambodian politics. However, in 1970 Lon Nol deposed Sihanouk, because the latter was seen as supporting the Viet Cong. In protest, Sihanouk threw his support to Pol Pot's side. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the United States invasion of Cambodia shortly after the coup, and subsequent bombings by the US (which continued illegally even after Congress voted to suspend them) drove many to Pol Pot's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities. Sihanouk was soon side-lined by his more radical colleagues.

Why repeat or elaborate on the same point further down? If there is additional information about US involvement in the rise of Pol Pot, it should be merged with the above paragraph that I quoted, or else the above paragraph that I quoted should be merged with the new section. soulpatch

---

The US acted despicably in Cambodia without any sound strategic reason to be there, or in Indochina at all, but if they (we) killed 2 million people in a country with 12 million population then it was the most spectacularly successful civilian bombing of all time and deserves full documentation and maybe even a separate article. That is to say, prove it or take it out. Ortolan88

---

Did a merge. Also marked the bit about U.S. bombing of Cambodia leading the Khmer Rouge victory as controversial (which it is) and separated out the death tolls (which aren't controversial).

---

Moved Marxism -> Maoism. Much of the Khmer Rouge ideology was derived from Maoism (such as the focus on agricultural development of the peasant which isn't in classical Marxism at all). Basically, the Khmer Rouge undertook Cultural Revolution like policies with the belief that Mao wasn't radical enough.

One quote is that the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was "Maoist ends with Stalinist means".

-- User:Roadrunner

I still wonder why you reverted my last edit. Of course the Khmer Rouge were maoist. But I don't like the phrase "Though adherents to a form of Maoism, the Khmer Rouge were anti-Soviet..." it was normal for a maoist to be anti-Soviet at the time why not "Adherents to a form of Maoism, the Khmer Rouge were anti-Soviet..."  ?? User:Ericd

Oopss.. I see what you were trying to do. Changed the sentence.

---

Ericd:

Roadrunner's right. The Khmer Rouge, in addition, favored a direct route to communism.

172

---

I changed it a little. Something has to be mentioned to distinguish the ideologies of the Khmer Rouge and the Cultural Revolution.

Changed perverted to extreme. This actually gets some larger debates on how one chooses to view the Cultural Revolution.

---

“Perverted” was the apt term, not extreme. Pol Pot diverted from the principles of Maoism ideologically, hence “perversion”. ‘More extreme’ implies a contrast in ideological fervency and dedication.

I agree completely with the difference between perversion and extreme, which is why I made the change. As I said before the problem is how we view Maoism and the Cultural Revolution. I changed the language again try to avoid the issue.

---------------------

“Virulent” is not a compromise between “perverted” and “extreme”. So far, only the word “perverted” can account for the ideological contrasts. The reference to Stalinism is way off. Pol Pot was quite the enemy of Stalinist-style modernization. 172 172

---

The paradox is that the USA were supporting maoists (realpolitik ?). The paradox is not that the Khmer Rouge were anti-soviet.

About perverted/extreme : It's not an easy question to connect the Cambodian genocide with Khmer Rouge ideology, ideology doesn't explain all.

User:Ericd

---

The US directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot, even though he was an adherent to a perverted form of Cultural Revolution-era Maoism.

Is this the intended meaning? --mav

How does "perverted" keep showing up? Why not "called himself a Maoist" or "adherent to a form of Cultural-Revolution-era Maoism" or "adherent to a Maoist sect". It's not as if there was a Maoist Bureau of Standards. The "perverted" can't be anything but POV. Ortolan88

---

Pol Pot altered Maoism. That's why it's a "perverted" form. He also drew a lot from Khmer nationalism. You people put me in the unusual position of having to defend Maoism, which I oppose.

There is a point of view that argues that Pol Pot refined Maoism and that the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was more purely Maoist than the ideology of the Communist Party. This gets into the really messy question of what is Maoism

and who defines what Maoism is. At some point that should be added to the article on the Khmer Rouge, and I suspect that you and I take opposite sides of the question.

IMHO it's better in Wikipedia to explicitly state a debate

rather than to merely allude to it in words.

--- User:Roadrunner

---

I changed the sentence to emphasize the contradiction that ericd was trying to get at without getting into messy ideological debates. That one word (perverted vs. extreme) is the tip of an iceberg and its better to describe the iceberg elsewhere.

-- User:Roadrunner

---

Talking about a perverted form of maoism mean the is an non-perverted form of maiosm that's not sure... we will never get out of such a debate so it's better not to go in in the article.

User:Ericd

---

Actually, I think we should to into the debate somewhere in the article. It's just too complicated to express in one word.

Also I reverted, moving the article up makes it sound like the United States intentionally supported Pol Pot in the early 1970's.

No the right place is in the Khmer Rouge article !!!

---

There seems to be a lot of text in this article that isn't directly related to the subject (sic Pol Pot). This text needs to be moved or deleted. Please keep the subject of the article in mind while editing. --mav

---

Pol Pot studied in Paris I still wonder to what extend if he wasn't more influenced by Robespierre than Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao. User:Ericd

---

Removed sentence about U.S. support. The United States most certainly was not supporting Pol Pot in the early 1970's.

Also the Shawcross thesis is highly controversial and the whole section needs balance.

User:Roadrunner

---

I agree with you US supported Pol Pot after 1978. Not before. 172 moved one paragraph. I think his attitute is not really NPOV. On About the Shawcross thesis it seemsz accepted by historian than american bombing destabilized Cambodia and served Pol Pot's propaganda but the sentence "would probably not have come to power without" his highly speculative and controversial.

User:Ericd

---

This probably belongs in the Khmer Rouge section but there the main reason the Shawcross thesis is controversial is that it gets into the very painful question of "who in the United States is responsible for the Khmer Rouge". While it is necessary to mention Shawcross, I think that the article is quite unbalanced without mentioning the views of American Conservatives who point out that funding for the Lon Nol government was cut by Congress, and that a number of leftist intellectuals (namely Noam Chomsky) were quite supportive of the Khmer Rouge until it became clear how awful they were.

User:Roadrunner

I think that the claim that Chomsky ever "supported" the Khmer Rouge is itself highly controversial.

It is somewhat controversial in the sense that Chomsky denies it, but personally I find his denials rather unconvincing. It probably would be better to hash it out in the Chomsky article.

Also, even if it were true that he did (and I doubt that it is), that bears no relationship that I can see to the historical events surrounding how US government policy helped or didn't help the Khmer Rouge come to power, which is the revelant question for purposes of this article.

Actually "what is the relevant question" is itself a controversial question.

How is it relevant? Even if what many consider the slander against Chomsky were true, he didn't set US policy (he had 0% influence on US policy), and his views on the Khmer Rouge after they came to power have absolutely nothing to do with what the the events and policies were that led to them coming to power. The people in the White House during that period were Nixon and Ford, not Noam Chomsky. soulpatch

This is getting far afield of Pol Pot, but I think that Chomsky understates

and underestimates the influence he has on foreign policy. Political leaders make policy but they do not do so in a vacuum. It seems pretty clear to me that in 1975 Ford wanted to continue funding to Lon Nol but couldn't because of the national mood. The other reason this is relevant is that Chomsky's views on the Khmer Rouge are relevant in order to evaluate his the legitimacy of his opinions on other things.

The national mood was one of being tired of a very long war. Chomsky had nothing to do with creating the national mood, and he CERTAINLY had no influence on Ford. I also don't agree that Chomsky's views on one thing bear necessarily any connection to his views on anything else; people can be wrong about one thing without being wrong about something else. It happens all the time. Who is right about everything? In any case, if that does belong somewhere, it is relevant in the Chomsky article, not here. soulpatch

On the other hand, I would agree that the Lon Nol funding issue is relevant to the subject. (That being said, I also think that if the Khmer Rouge had not developed into a major opposition force, which happened after 1970, it would have been a moot point, since Lon Nol wouldn't have anybody to need US funding to help put down, so the question of what led the Khmer Rouge to develop into a major force after 1970, and the degree of US government's complicity thereof, still seems like a fundamental issue.)

What this basically comes down to is that both pro-war conservatives and anti-war liberals would like to tar the other with the taint of being war criminals and responsible for the actions of the Khmer Rouge.

I actually don't think either side is accusing the other of conscious complicity in this matter. See my comments below. I would point out that the "anti-war liberals" weren't conducting the war, it was the "pro-war conservatives". You can't blame people who aren't in power for how those who were in power conduct a war. That is why the whole Noam Chomsky thing is not relevant to this article.

I think regardless of the outcome of this debate, Chomsky's attitudes toward the Khmer Rouge are relevant in an article about the Khmer Rouge.

My feeling is that his views would only be relevant in such an article if he were actually a signficant figure in the history of the Khmer Rouge; but he wasn't. He had no influence on the Khmer Rouge coming to power, and he had no influence on the US policy that (many believe) led to the Khmer Rouge coming to power. He was just one voice on the sidelines. I just think that any discussion about his views on the Khmer Rouge belong in the Chomsky article, not here. soulpatch

If people want to discuss the charges (which many consider slander) that Chomskey "supported" the Khmer Rouge, then discuss it in his own article, but any discussion of how people on the sidelines of policymaking felt about the war has no bearing on the central question of how those policies affected the outcome in Cambodia. soulpatch

However, I think for which there is general agreement is that no one in the United States government in 1973 wanted the Khmer Rouge to win, and no one in the anti-war movement in 1973 really understood what sort of policies that the Khmer Rouge were going to implement.

I would agree, except to go further to say that no one in the West really undestood what was going to happen in Cambodia. I think the important point about US complicity in Cambodia was, as Shawcross put it, Cambodia was a "sideshow". The US just didn't really care what was happening in Cambodia enough to bother with the implications of its policies.

I think the more difficult question is whether a reasonable person who

did care about Cambodia *should have known* what was going to happen.

I don't think anyone is accusing the US of deliberating setting up the Khmer Rouge so that it would commit those atrocities. The problem with US policy was simply that it cavalierly engaged in policies that did not take into account what it was doing to Camodia. I don't think anyone in 1973 knew what was going to happen in 1975. soulpatch

David Horowitz has quoted Chomsky (possibly unfairly) in such a way that he appears to be making such an accusation. I agree that all the Chomsky related discussion should go in his article. However I am happy that my earlier removal of again has withstood the storm. I had not realised that I was treading on eggshells at the start of last month. Incidentally, has anyone checked whether Sino-Vietnam War is any better an article title than Anglo-French War would be? -- Alan Peakall 17:57 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Personally, one thing that utterly amazes me is little people complain about Nordom Sihanouk's actions in the matter.

That is a good point. I agree that Sihanouk does deserve blame in this matter. soulpatch

U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge in the 1980's is somewhat more difficult to morally defend, but even there one could point out that the Khmer Rouge were one part of a general anti-Vietnamese coalition and that the government of Hun Sen (and Hun Sen himself) consisted largely of former Khmer Rouge officials and didn't exactly have clean hands.

soulpatch

Guys, please. Anything that changes the meaning of an entry is not a "minor change". WTF is going on with this article?

---

Rewrote section about the 1970's to remove references about U.S. support. U.S. support for the KR was in the 1980's and is mentioned below.

--User:Roadrunner

172 Read:

That same year, Richard Nixon ordered a military incursion into Cambodia in order to destroy Viet Cong sanctuaries bordering on South Vietnam. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the United States invasion of Cambodia, and subsequent bombings by the US (which continued illegally even after Congress voted to suspend them) drove many to Pol Pot's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities.

It has been argued that the Khmer Rouge may not have come to power without the destabilization of the Vietnam War, particularly of the American bombing campaigns to 'clear out the Vietamese sanctuaries' in Cambodia. William Shawcross argued this point in his 1979 book "Sideshow".

As you can see above the US role is already in the article. I'm going to resote Roadrunner's version which removed the duplication. --mav

---

It’s not redundant. Roadrunner said it himself: Rewrote section about the 1970's to remove references about U.S. support. U.S. support for the KR was in the 1980's and is mentioned below.

Nixon's bombing is referenced in one context, the def-facto alliance in another --172

I'll wait to see what Roadrunner has to say. --mav

---

was a Cambodian politician most famous for his leadership of the Khmer Rouge

I don't think the words politician or famous are the best way to describe this tyrant and mass murderer. "Infamous" would be more accurate. --Uncle Ed

well, I think of politician as a morally neutral word. So is famous. The problem with "tyrant" is, not everyone may agree. Many people think Ronald Reagan and other US presidents are responsibile for massive suffering around the world, but -- whether I agree with them or not -- I would want such people labled in clearly pejorative ways in Wikipedia.

I think the article must include discussion of mass murder in Cambodia. But "infamous mass murderer" smacks of editorializing that violates NPOV. Please don't misunderstand me -- I am not defending the guy. I hate Hitler, but the article on him rightfully begins by describing him as a leader of Germany. Slrubenstein

Is my version OK? Zocky 21:14 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

The word famous carries a connotation of approval. "Well known" is neutral. "Notorious" carries a connotation of disapproval. Just thought I'd point this out. Zocky's version is probably better than mine :-) --Uncle Ed

I think leader is better than politician in that case.

Ericd

---

The article seems more a history of the Khmer Rouge than a biography of Pol Pot. Should it be recast? --Uncle Ed

Probably a bit... But Ed, please bear NPOV in mind. I'm sure that even in this issue, one side wasn't all good and the other all bad. "Forced to flee" sounds about right to me.Zocky 21:25 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

No, "forced to flee" carries the connotation of persecution. Someone who is trying to subvert a government to create a murderous tyranny isn't being "persecuted". Let's not be pro-Pol Pot, as that would violate the NPOV you just cited. --Uncle Ed

Persecution is the function of the state, not of the individual. I'm sure (in fact, I know) that many of the Soviet dissidents had very distasteful world-views (remember, not all opposition to soviet government was liberal democratic), but persecuted they still were. I don't know enough about Cambodian government before Khmer Rouge, but from what I have, I don't get a picture of idyllic democracy. Zocky 21:32 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree that "force to flee" carries any connotation of sympathy for the person who fled. It simply connotes the fact that the person was being pursued, and in order to save themselves they ran away. Lots of people, good and bad, have historically been pursued and thus have been "forced to flee". There is no POV inherent in that phrasing. soulpatch

---

172, we have gone over this before: "virulent and deviant" are NOT NPOV terms. --mav

---

The deleted content was NPOV because it asserted an empirically verifiable fact, not an opinion. Can anyone reasonably conclude that Pol Pot’s variant of Maoism wasn’t changed substantially and radicalized? Can anyone conclude that Khmer nationalism wasn’t a very important factor? I understand the bad connotation surrounding the word “deviated”. In this context though it denotes major modifications worth mentioning in any illuminating article pertaining to Pol Pot.

172

Either choose more neutral sounding adjectives or use as few adjectives as possible. Words like "virulent" and "deviant", while possibly true in an objective sense, still do evoke an emotional response in the reader which is far from NPOV. Please see your talk page. --mav

---

Fine, then resotre that text with better adjetives. I can’t think of any off-hand, but I’m sure that you can. Otherwise, I’m sure that we can all agree that this article needs to address his ideology.

172

"radically revised" is much better. BTW you shouldn't expect others to NPOV your edits. That is your job. --mav

---

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize the connotative suggestiveness of those words in that context since I’ve grown accustomed to reading those words in the literature about Pol Pot’s ideology. In that context I was expecting a more denotative interpretation. But this is an encyclopedia article, and I should have been more careful.

172

OK... I've removed the highly speculative bit ("or perhaps it was...") for the 3rd time. 172, you're really hung up on that bit, aren't you? It's completely non-informative and it is speculation, and it doesn't have the encyclopaedic feel to it. Write it matter-of-factly or just leave it out. Any other opinions? Zocky 14:52 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

It is a vast oversimplification to say that Pol Pot was anti-modernist. OPne reason for the forced relocation of many people to the countryside was to increase rice production in order to increase foeign capital that could be invested in industry. I am not saying that the ends justified the means or that the means were even effective, I am saying that the reasons for Khmer policies are not so simple, and not so easy to classify. Slrubenstein

---

This paragraph has to be revised right away:

"Some believe that under Pol Pot's regime Cambodia was the country that came the closest to existing as a pure Marxist state. Pol Pot believed that Communism was incompatible with an industrial civilization and thus attempted to deurbanize society and eliminate all forms of industry. Collective farms were implemented as the sole form of egalitarian, susitance living, and the campaigns of killings were implemented as a way of eliminating the intelectual opposition of those who refused to particiapte in the system."

I don't know where to begin explaining where that notion is way off. Perhaps “communalism” instead of “Marxist” would be appropriate. Bypassing socialism and favoring a direct route to communism goes against all the conceptions of Marxism.

For now, I'm going to change "Marxist" to "communalist". But this is only a temporary solution pending dialogue and more revisions to that paragraph. 172

It doesn't matter if it's "way off" or not. Some people believe this, so it's worth mentioning. user:J.J.

---

Yes, some people misinformed people believe things that are incorrect. I haven't read the work of a single expert, however, who claimed that Pol Pot was a "pure" or orthodox Marxist. By his own account, by-passing the intermediate stage of socialism means that he's not a "pure" Marxist. I think that the writer, by mistake, meant "communist" or "communalist" rather than "Marxist". I've heard some saying that Pol Pot's regime came close to pure "communism", and there's a good argument for that, but I’ve never heard any expert claiming that Pol Pot’s regime closely adhered to Marxist ideology. It's sometimes easy, however, to confuse terms like e "socialist", "Marxist", "communist", "communitarian", etc.

172

---

Yet another Wikipedia page whose bizarre ideas could only come from one country - the USA, and only from the fevered minds of the denizens of that country that lean to the right.

I don't really know where to start in all of this mythology, but their notion that the cities were evacuated because the CPK had some strange ideological desire to seems to be a decent starting point. The reality is that the US Air Force bombarded the Cambodia countryside for years, killing hundreds of thousands. This drove food growing peasants out of the countryside and into the cities - overcrowding them and causing a massive food shortage. The CPK took over a country on the verge of starvation. Evacuating these people back to the countryside to grow their own food is the most practical, logical thing the CPK could have done. Yet throughout Wikipedia, someone seems to be trying to paint it as some mad, ideological, Luddite, whatever thing to have done. I'm sure if the CPK had let things be, there would be much moaning about how the communists engineered a famine or whatever nonsense.

-- Lancemurdoch 06:36, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sources?

---

---

I would also like to know why vietnam invaded cambodia. perhaps this is not the article for that.

i would like to know more about pol pot in paris. whta happened to him there? what did he see? who else was with him? who were his influences there?

Vietnam invade due to a refugee crisis from the Maoist utopia. TDC 00:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

According to Phillip Short in his book; "Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare." , Pol Pot read Peter Kropotkin the Anarchist and may have been influenced by his writings. Very different from Maoism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another page protection?

Very Verily,

You will not get away with arbitrarily reverting the work of anyone else but me. After all, when I'm not a party in a dispute, **I** can intervene as an admin to stop the edit war. And I am not a participant in the Cambodia-related edit wars (my edits to the Cambodia-related pages have solely entailed adding past protection notices).

If you refuse to discuss your differences with Hanpuk directly, as opposed to griping about superficial behavioral red herrings on other users' pages, **I** will protect the page. BTW, I will not be acting in a capacity in which I can be accused of protecting "the wrong version" I will protect the most recent version of the page once the three revert rule has been violated, irrespective of whose version is protected. I'll will post this notice: This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page. 172 08:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Saloth Sar --> Pol Pot, request for details?

The article says Saloth Sar was better known as Pol Pot... but doesn't mention why. Did he change his name? (why, when?) Was it a title or epithet? (meaning what?) A pseudonym? (taken for what purpose?) —Muke Tever 01:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Must be his revolutionary name. Lenin and Trotsky also had revolutionary names, their real names: Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov and Lev Davidovich Bronstein.

It is most commonly thought to stand for "Political Potential," but Pol Pot usually referred to be called "Brother Number One."

• I've seen the above cited before, but find it highly unlikely that Pol would have named himself in English as opposed to Khmer or French. Philip Short's Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare gives the name "Pol" as being a reference to the name that Sar used when writing for an underground newspaper as a teenager; "Pot" having been added according to a Khmer alliterative naming custom (as with Son Sen, Vorn Vet, and many others). Heather 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Pol Pot means Politique Potentielle which is the French for Potential Policy (Member Avi, July 26th 2006)

Philip Short writes in his book "Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare" that Saloth/Pol regularly changed his alias to make it more difficult for Cambodian authorities to figure out who, and what, he was.

Hopelessly slanted

This article is hopelessly slanted. It repeats much of the same propagandistic POV material, often verbatim, that can be found at Khmer Rouge.

Of course it does. The communists and their empty-headed fans always do their best to rewrite history to try to make their favorite thugs look like enlightened statesmen.

I won't repeat the discussion; see the talk page for Khmer Rouge. It is apparent that a number of censors just won't allow any questioning of their right-wing fairy tales. Shorne 00:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The killing fields are no more a fairy tale than the holocaust. Try going to Cambodia, and see if you can find ANYONE who didn't lose a relative to Pol Pot's mass murder campaigns.

Please see Khmer Rouge

Readers are invited to see the talk page for Khmer Rouge, where I am tearing the POV-pushers limb from limb. Shorne 22:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 10:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changes that need to be made

Like I said, the evacuation took place after Lon Nol fled in mid-1975. It's true that Sihanouk was "head of state" at that time but the Khmer Rouge were de facto in control since they'd marched into Phnom Penh.

Also, a couple weeks (?) ago I changed the info on starvation to read a little less like pro-KR POV. Phnom Penh was overcrowded, yes, but the current version presents it like the KR tactic was the only way to keep the city and other urban areas from starving to death, despite the fact that this insane and impossible kind of "self-sufficiency" had always been rooted in their ideology and they refused offers of outside aid. J. Parker Stone 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What school did he study at in Paris?

"In 1949, he won a scholarship to study radio engineering in Paris. During his studies, he became a communist and joined the French Communist Party. In 1953, he returned to Cambodia." Anyone know what school/instituion he studied at? And who/what provided the scholarship? 58.147.26.57 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• It was a technical school; I can look up the exact institution if anyone really cares. The scholarship was provided by Norodon Sihanouk to a number of students in an endeavor to help modernize Cambodia. Heather 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin et al

Based on popular opinion is what he did to the Khmer people considered genocide? If not, can it be comparable to what Hitler and Stalin did? Obviously Stalin had more years to do what he did and Hitler had a few more than Pol Pot for the most part. The Rwandan Genocide may have been the fastest, but is Pol Pot comparable to any of those dictators? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.9.252 (talk • contribs) .

I would submit that yes, Pol Pot is comparable, in that he, as the leader of the government in question, is responsible for the things that went on "on his watch." Is he the same as the others that you mention? Well, that's why one would want to compare, to figure that out. In any case, I would point you to the Khmer Rouge page and corresponding discussion page. There is a great deal of discussion about genocide, autogenocide, etc. --Easter Monkey 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Kampuchea

There is Democratic Kampuchea article. The Pol Pot article should rather inform about him. Xx236 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparent Discrepancy in Numbers

In the last line of the introduction it is said that, "Today the excesses of his government are widely blamed for causing the deaths of up to two million Cambodians." Yet, below under Democratic Kampuchea the following is listed: "Pol Pot's regime killed 4-5 million people between 1975-1979..." Both of these statements can't be true, can they? Blinutne 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now neither are right. Cambodia's population was only 7-8 million before the Khmer Rouge took over. If the person who put in 4-5 million can cite a reliable source that says over half the population died, then it could stay. Otherwise, it's inaccurate. I have never seen an estimate over 3 million, most are between 1.5 and 2 million.

in addition, this part: "The Khmer Rouge refused offers of humanitarian aid, a decision which proved to be a humanitarian catastrophe: millions died of starvation and brutal government-inflicted overwork in the countryside. To the Khmer Rouge, outside aid went against their principle of national self-reliance."

seems to conflict with the two million number as well. it seems that for "millions" to do from these reasons, nobody could have died from outright killing. you can't really take "millions" (plural) out of 2 million to get the number of people who died from reasons other than starvation and overwork. Murderbike 23:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Biographical details needed

It seems to me that most of this entry belongs in the Khmer Rouge section, rather than in Pol Pot's biographical entry.

If anyone can dig up information on his formative years and the evolution of his ideology, then this section would be more complete.

I've reworked most of the page to do this. I've decided not to rework the 1975-1979 section because its too political a subject and I'd rather work on other things. Its difficult to seperate the Khmer Rouge from Pol Pot because he was the movement and large parts of his life can only be detailed in terms of the movement. I've done my best to show the evolution of the ideology, how it differs from Marxism, Maoism or anything else. 64.12.116.134 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

Someone put a clean-up tag some months ago, with reason. I've trimmed a bit the first section, but even a quick look on the article shows that it needs trimming, besides Wikifaction. My attention-time, and I supposed anyone's else, is limited, and I do not wish to learn all details of Pol Pot's primary school education when reading an article on him. Lapaz 23:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup tag was added months ago when the content of the article was little more than an arguement over events 1975 to 1979. The current article contains a large amount of new material that was recently written. The page is being slowly improved and if you don't have the time, please leave it to the people already working on it. 168.127.0.51 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter claim

A statement was added to the article to the effect that the Carter Administration was supporting the Khmer Rouge in 1977. This claim is simply false. It is not supported by the cited source. The closest the source comes is the statement:

In 1981, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said: "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot." The US, he added, "winked publicly" as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge.

The quote is from 1981 long after Carter was out of office. The quote is not sourced or dated as far as what time Brzezinski is talking about. China was sending arms to Cambodia and supporting Pol Pot since the early 1970s. They required no encouragement to continue a policy that was already in place.

In general, the source used is completely politically biased in favor of the current Cambodian government under the control of ex-Khmer Rouge member Hun Sen and Vietnam. It repeats the old discredited Vietnamese political message from the 1980s that Vietnam and its army had to rule Cambodia to save it from the Khmer Rouge. When, in fact, Vietnam's new administration was full of Khmer Rouge. 168.127.0.51 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Brzezinski could only have been referring to the time Carter was president, because that was the time Pol Pot was active. Besides, in all probability he was talking with regard to his capacity as national security adviser. It's true that the Chinese wouldn't need encouragement, but if there had been strong objections by the US, then I believe they would have thought twice. Anyway, because this is a sensitive issue, I won't restore the content in the article, but I will put the link here, so it is easily accessible to anyone interested.

http://www.zmag.org/meastwatch/pilgerpot.htm

--Atavi 12:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can accept statements about Carter Administration policy after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. After Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, the Chinese/Thais/Americans were all complicit in various activities. If the date were changed from 1977 to 1979, I would not have as much of a problem with what you wrote. 168.127.0.51 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point I should perhaps say that although I did write the text about which we are having this discussion, I didn't come up with the idea itself.

User:64.192.107.144 had written a text, which I quote:

In 1977, relations with Vietnam began to fall apart. There were small border clashes in January mostly due to refugees fleeing Cambodia into Vietnam. Even though this arena had recently experienced a celebration of the end of the Vietnam War, the President of the United States, Jimmy Cater, continued to arm and support socialist governments around the world including the Khmer Rouge. He failed to realize that socialist governance has failed the test of time. Therefore, the United States in effect became an accomplise in the Khmer Rouge campaign.

I thought that it was too biased, but in the same time I wondered if there was any truth in it. I searched the web and came up with the link I provided. Combining the paragraph written by someone else and what the reference was saying I wrote my text.

I don't know much either about Carter policy or Cambodian history.

What I am trying to say is that it seems would be better suited to write any text about Jimmy Carter, if indeed any mention should be made.

--Atavi 10:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Slanted - hardly any mention of international factors

The way the article stands now, it mainly says: An evil ignorant man rose to power and did bad things. Which is not completely wrong but it doesn't explain how he could rise to power from a marginal leader of 18 comrades (as mentioned in the article) to an all-out dictator. The main cause for that was the Vietnam war and especially the US strategy (denied at the time and completely illegal) of bombing Cambodia back to the stone age. This devastation caused the complete destruction of the country, destabilisation and was the root cause behind the rise of the barbaric Pol Pot regime. And all of this is well documented, e.g. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/Sideshow.html or if you want a more respected source, the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/newsmakers/1952981.stm As long as this is missing this article, to me, is completly missing in NPOV. --84.188.210.25 23:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article gives a comprehensive account of the rise of Pol Pot and the CPK insurgency covering events from the 1950s to the 1990s. As mentioned in the article, Pol Pot's insurrection against the Cambodian government began in the mid-1960s before the large-scale bombings you are referencing. It is simply impossible to say that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were the product of US bombings in 1970.

The first source you cite (Shawcross) has nothing to do with Pol Pot. Its a history of America's role in the Vietnam war from an America-centric perspective. This article (Pol Pot) specifically is written from the perspective of Cambodian history rather than how Cambodian history relates to American politics or American wars.

The only relivant material in the second source is: "His critics refer to Kissinger's complicity in the illegal carpet-bombing of neutral Cambodia, designed to deprive North Vietnam of troops and supplies, but which sowed the seeds for the murderous Pol Pot regime.". The quote is not sourced and makes any number of claims that are politically disputed to say the least:

• "illegal carpet-bombing of neutral Cambodia". The statement is factually wrong in that most of the bombings were done with the complicity of the Cambodian government. Calling Cambodia neutral is factually wrong. Cambodia had Vietnamese bases on its soil and was allowing the shipment of weapons to Vietnamese forces through its ports. During the peak of the bombing in the 1970s, the North Vietnamese were arming and training an insurgency aimed at destroying the Cambodian government. How is it possible to consider Camboidia as a "neutral".

• "sowed the seeds for the murderous Pol Pot regime". This is not supportable. The CPK insurgency which became the Pol Pot regime started before Kissiinger was even in the government. And if you want to start looking at complicit war criminals, start with Prince Norodom Sihanouk and continue with the Khmer Rouge murderer who was installed by the Vietnamese as ruler of Cambodia (Hun Sen).

The material you wish added to the article is itself NPOV. The old simple-minded explainations that the Khmer Rouge went "insane" because of American bombs is nonsense. It disregards the history of Cambodia itself and replaces it with ill-constructed theories with no basis in fact. 168.127.0.51 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of discussion and the vagueness of the NPOV claim, I'm removing the tag from the section now. 12.96.162.45 19:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wrote the beginning title of this is FUBAR!! It was the peace necks and other idiots who undermined the effort in vietnam and therefore helped to put Pol Pots killing butt on the throne. The piece above is simply ignorant trash designed to avoid blame for what really happened!! When the US was in vietnam, there was no pol pots, but when we left there certainly was. RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

What if...?

What if the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot hadn't brought communism to Cambodia? How would life there be different?

Cambodia would have been spared the bloodbath of the Khmer Rouge era. But communism would still have been brought there. What happened after the Khmer Rouge (Vietnamese occupation and a puppet government) would have happened earlier as it did in Laos. The Vietnamese would likely still have left around the end of the cold war and their puppet government would likely have survived (as it did with the KR era). In summary, many less people would be dead or maimed but the basic political situation would not be radically different than it is today.

date of death

Why is the year and day Pol Pot died different...on the same page?!?

supporters section

I've removed the "supporters" section. Its not appropriate for this article. If you want to create an article on that group, create a seperate one. I can't find any mention of the group aside from a geocities page and the reference here. They are marginal (at best) and don't deserve free advertising in a biography.

12.96.162.45 21:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Personality

I've read in a couple places that, in person, Pol Pot was actually a pretty nice guy. I don't really know if there is anywhere to put this in the article at all, but if anyone has any bright ideas, go for it. 71.65.240.196 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maoist Category

Its wrong to list Pol Pot under the category Maoists. Neither Pol Pot nor Mao Zedong considered him Maoist. ITs true he had good relations with China but that was simply power politics he also had good relations with The USA, and ASEAN. Since all of them feared the expansion of the Soviets and Vietnam. In addition he had much better relations with China with the free market Deng Xiaoping (who actually went to war to save him in 1979), than he ever did with Mao. The only thing in favor of calling Pol Pot a Maoist is the western generalizations that say his policies were similar to Mao's Cultural Revolution and classify North Korea as Stalinist. Anyway if neither Maoists nor Pol Pot consider him a Maoist I think its pretty inaccurate on a strictly factualy basis to label him a Maoist. We can't play the role of determing what poltics someone "really" has. Saying that Pol Pot isnt a Maoist is in no way a value judgement of Maoism after all there are still real evil Maoists such as the Gang of Four, but its simply a factual inaccuracy. We cant label Tony Blair a conservative or Guliani a democrat for example just because they might have some conservative or democratic polciies. The only legitimate way you can label Pol Pot a Maoist is if you can provide a primary source where he openly states that he is in favor of Maoist policies. --Gary1234 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

wait...

i don't think my first post got through so i'll try again

In the section The Path to Power (1969-1975) it states

At the beginning of 1976, the movement was estimated to consist of no more than 1500 regulars.

but then later it states 

In early 1972, Pol Pot toured the insurgent/Vietnamese controlled areas and Cambodia. He saw a regular Khmer Rouge army of 35,000 men taking shape supported by around 100,000 irregulars.

 Is it a typo? besides the year 1976 doesnt fit with the section 1969-1975.                

sorry if this is a double post —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tissueissues (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

I ve just known of this man only at a social studies lesson at school! the first time i herd of what he did i didnt think of him as an enemy but a man standing up to what he believes in! its what he was destined for and not having the rich and eucated and the poor seperate but he believed that everyone was i an equal fairnss as everyone else! thats what i believe in but he thought he was right which destroyed him and made him feel powerful and he chose to kill and begin to do the wring thing! I dont blame him but that is everybodies dream to have great power! we did a survey of what kids would want to do if they had power over thewrld! one spectacular kid wa the only honest! others said thta they would ban smoking or alcohal but all of them did these things but ne kid out of 27 said he wanted to kill his enemies and have him treat like royalty and have all ugly girls moved away , far far away!!! i laughed at this but he felt uncomfortable and left out! i was very glad with this lad but he said he would want this to happen but he didint need it! that was my inspiration to write this! so thank this kid!

Confusion of famine deaths and execution in Khmer Rouge era

The article would benefit from properly distinguishing between the causes of excess mortality in during Pol Pot's rule. Most sources suggest that between 200,000 to c. 400,000 Cambodians were murdered by the Khmer Rouge, with only a small perecentage at S-21 or Tuol Sleng (21,000). Premature deaths as a result of famine and disease at around 1 million or more.

Currently it says 2 million were exterminated, which is misleading.

It would also be useful to mention that the figures are estimates, because with this exception of S 21, no records were kept in the Khmer Rouge period and in the final years of Lon Nol's rule civilian administration broke down.

References to Stalin distinguish between his victims in the Ukranian famine of 1932 and those of the Great Terror from 1937 onwards. This doesn't reduce Pol Pot's culpability for the deaths, but there are two different reasons why so many died:

- the regime's policy of exporting rice, work days of up 18 hours combined with poor food, lack of primary medical care, poor sanitation and living conditions

- torture and murder by Khmer Rogue cardre

Pol Pot's agricultaral and social policies were more lethal than the violence directly meted out by cadres.

Adamjamesbromley 14:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Zedong

Having been directly and indirectly responsible for the physical elimination of about one-third of the Cambodian population during his stay in power, Pol Pot is today regarded as one of the three worst mass-murderers of modern history, along with Belgium's King Leopold II, Adolph Hitler, and Josef Stalin.

Wouldn't we call him one of the five worst mass-murderers along with Hitler, Stalin, Leopold, and... Zedong? Wassamatta 04:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

Yes, that seems like a more correct statement considering number of deaths for which he was responsible for. -- Vision Thing -- 12:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Atheist - do we have cites for this claim ?.

It should be trivial to get a reference where he says he is an atheist. Trouble is a Google gets loads of hits where people repeat he is an atheist as opposed to some reliable source that quotes him. We could simply be mistaking some nontheism for atheism. Ttiotsw 10:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Five Worst Mass-Murderers

There seems to have been quite a bit of development on this title. However, the claim is not citing any reference to an academic source. If this is a term randomly coined by the authors of this article, it would be an original claim, and not at all appropriate for encyclopedic purposes. I am guessing that this is most likely the case since the modifier on the title is a vague "worst". How do you measure badness in a mass-murderer? If it is by sheer number then they would be more accurately called "five most prolific mass-murderers". If it is by the prevalent degree of cruelty with which the murders are conducted, then we can discuss this topic and come up with a scoring system for how mass-murders work their victims, in which case they would still be more accurately called "five most cruel mass-murders".

I also have some concerns about putting these five people together. It is rather difficult to see how these five are comparable. If we are talking about numbers, say each of them kill one million people, for Pol here, that's apparently a third or a quarter of the entire Cambodian population; but for Zedong, that's a fraction of a percentage of the chinese mass and not a great deal more than the number of yearly deaths in china due to illness and natural causes. No one in china noticed any perceptible population decline during zedong's reign. I think it was rather the prejudice of the westerner that would put Zedong here. Chiang persecuted communist revolutionaries close to the million, but no one is bringing him up here because any pro-communist or anti-anti-communist sediments are immediately based and stoned to death.

Also, these five worst mass-murderers mass-murdered under drasticly different circumstance. Adolf did it out of hate. Leopold did it out of the glory of his country. The other three did it to secure power. All of russia, china and indochina have had a history of new rulers purging out followers of their predecessors. It is a domestic occurrence. The numbers only grow large as the population base grows large. plenty of european monarchs ordered or gave consent to some form of inhuman exploitation of the new world. It might be a bit unfair to solely list leopold here just because belgians got a late start and the rest of killing were done right before the beginning of the modern age. as for hitler, history has seen many many attemps of eradicating all jews, although his methods were a bit unorthodox, listing him in here puts many many dead popes on sacriligious grounds.

My suggestion is to delete this ridiculous list altogether. --205.250.216.86 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Politique Potentielle"

Could someone verify for "Politique Potentielle" in the introduction? In proper French it means "potential politics", not "political potential" (and even less "political power"). Typewritten 15:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely erroneous - no need to check - now removed. Cheers, Paxse 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just saw that in the French Wikipedia entry they actually seem to say that "Pol Pot" comes from English "Political Potential" (and not from French), in reference to an expression used by Chinese authorities (??), though. Typewritten (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I have added teh sources tag. There are very few sources listed. Citations will improve this immensely.

Lorinhobenson 14:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed opening parargraph and clarified causes of death

The grammar was odd in opening para, all passive clauses and subordinates. Changed to make clear Pol Pot's political philosophy and to clarify that deaths caused by starvation, disease and murder. Removed top 5 mass-killers. Not sure this belongs in Wikipedia? Trivialises the subject and the reference cited is too simplistic. 12 millon Dead from Hitler's policies doesn't include all the war dead of World War Two. Doesn't add to the article I reckon.

But perhaps it would benefit from a reference to genocide (maybe even the new UN trial starting?)

Also ammended para for beginning of Khmer Rouge rule.

Could benefit from some mention of his obsessive secrecry. The new Philip Short biog has a lot on this.

Great edit! The opening reads much better now. Paxse 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest some revision of the Democratic Kampuchea and Conflict with Vietnam paras

The article is pretty good but I think it strays from its subject in the second half of the Democratic Kampuchea para and the conflict with Vietnam. Reads more like a history of the DK or the Khmer Rouge. Worth focusing more on Pol Pot's actions during this period - his infamouse 'microbes' speeech, the meeting with Western admirer Caldwell, his obsessive secrecry and his methods of rule (which were different to Mao or Stalin). What do people think? There's a lot of good detail that could be included in an expanded section here. The DK's self-destrucution was in part a function of Pol Pot's own insatiable paranoia, so that would well into the triggering of the conflict with Vietnam. Adamjamesbromley 16:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

S-21, Pol Pot and US involvement

I am looking for any information on US involvement in S-21 and Pol Pot in the late 1970's if anyone has some. It is for a personal reason involving a loved one in my life. Navy involvement more specifically. I don't know if this is protected information or not and if it is then that would be helpful for me also to know. Thanks! Hetherkae 02:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)hetherkae

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

ALL city dwellers?

In the first paragraph it states "... Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism where all city dwellers were relocated to the countryside...". Although I don't actually know what happened I doubt every single last human being was relocated from the cities, leaving them totally deserted, so shouldn't "all" be changed to "many"? Uberdude85 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken 'all' out. It was a pretty comprehensive evacuation, but without the adjective 'all' you get a more accurate summary. Adamjamesbromley 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All city dwellers were indeed relocated into the countryside. This was a central part of DK policy. They were then designated "new people" and were purged of Lon Nol government officials and high ranking army officers before being moved, persecuted, and generally designated as third class citizens until well into 1978. In '78 while preparing for war with Vietnam they were declared equal with the "old people" (peasants from areas long held by the communists like Takeo) and could join the party or the army. Small numbers of people were brought into the cities from the countryside - particularly in Phnom Penh and Battambang to run factories (often with Chinese technical advisors), to staff government agencies like Sary 's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to run important infrastructure like Phnom Penh port, hospitals, the airport etc. "All" is actually quite accurate in this case. Paxse 03:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I tried to cite the part in the main article regarding the numbers killed, but it didnt work, so Im going to leave it with someone who knows what they're doing to fix it.

The URL is http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/pol_pot.htm and the title of the website is "Pol Pot, Pol Pot Massacre, Pol Pot Genocide, Cambodia Genocide" The rest of the info will be on the page i think if anything else is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel.labes (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure the link you provided qualifies as a reliable reference. Also see this.--Atavi 20:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pol Pot aliases

Just making this available to anyone interested.

Pol's aliases are now cited; to be specific, his aliases are listed in the Dramatis Personae at the end of Philip Short's book about him. Thanks for pointing this out.

Origamikid 18:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

--Atavi 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Theravada Buddhism lingering in Khmer Rouge Ideology?

"...The party adapted elements of Theravada Buddhism to justify their non-standard communism."

Please explain or elaborate. Le Anh-Huy 00:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Name appearing as question marks

Ionius Mundus has added Pol Pot's name in his native language, but in my browser (and in RolandR's as well) it appears as question marks. We're both using Unicode UTF-8. My browser usually notifies me that I need to install a font, so that I can view a page correctly, but on this page it doesn't.--Atavi 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khmer Rouge6.jpg

Image:Khmer Rouge6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)