Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Another page protection?

Very Verirly,

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 08:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

You're clearly not neutral in any conflict involving me. Hanpuk has simply reverted back to his version which had already been rejected by several users for reasons explained at considerable length by countless people. -- VV 08:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Really? The page histories say otherwise with respect to the Cambodia-related articles. Ironically, **Hanpuk** would be able to make the argument that I am biased against him in any conflict involving him. In the past Cambodia-related edit wars, I was usually (if not always—if my memory's correct) protecting the most recent stable versions, which tended to be the versions posted before Hanpuk had edited the pages, and thus the versions that you had been restoring over and over again. Lately, I haven't been seeing other admins bothering to go to such lengths to avoid charges of protecting "the wrong version." So, this time I'll protect the page on the version not posted by the first person who has broken the three revert rule. This is an objective formula for determining whose version gets protected, so I fail to see how I could possibly be charged with failing to act impartially. 172 08:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

This page must remain permanently protected, or at least until Hanpuk either goes away or is banned. Adam 08:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Well I am not going away, that's for sure. As far as being banned, I have not broken any Wikipedia rule, certainly nothing to get me banned. It became obvious to me that VeryVerily and his little gang of friends, which includes yourself, had no interest in resolving anything having to do with this page or the other Cambodia pages. Anyone can look through the edit history comments and discussions to see this. Discussions being mostly me laying out many points, and VeryVerily and his group not bothering to for the most part, with "rv" as the edit comment, and little to not desire for discussion on talk pages. So I followed Wikipedia procedure and listed this page on the Request for Comments page. So I am not going away, and am not getting banned, thus according to you the only solution is to have this page permanently protected (and I would assume at least four other Cambodia-related pages that cover the same ground would, in your view I'd imagine have to be protected permanently as well). I would rather have Wikipedia procedure resolve this problem, but whatever happens happens. Hanpuk 23:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There is no "Wikipedia procedure" for dealing with people like you who just want to insert propaganda into articles (in your case communist propaganda, but the problem usually arises with nationalist propaganda) other than permanent protection of the articles in question. So that is what will have to happen. If it doesn't, people will just go on reverting your garbage on sight. Adam 23:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda? The anti-CPK (e.g. on your side) scholar who wrote the first big anti-CPK book, Ponchaud, said two million died. Now let's skip over whether this anti-CPK, e.g. taking the right wing side, person was correct or not. Ponchaud himself said the number he gave started before the CPK takeover in 1975, while here it was said that the two million was 1975-1979. You people can't even get the dates wrong from people on your own side. The "communist propaganda" in this case was from an anti-CPK, anti-communist Catholic priest who you people can't even source correctly. If anyone is inventing history, it is people who say that they tried to be reasonable and resolve this time and time again and I am being the unreasonable one. A quick look through the discussion page here shows that the few times someone did explain a reversion, it was simply full of ad hominem attacks and the like like yours here. I would prefer to stick to getting a page with true and facts and a NPOV instead of making ad hominem attacks, calling the contributions of people who source material garbage versus the ones who can't even get their own sources straight and so forth. Hanpuk 00:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

We have already provided you with several other sources unrelated to Panchaud; the case was painstakingly laid out on this very talk page. At this point many users are aware of your activities, so your attempt to whitewash the KR cannot succeed. Just go away and bug one of the "non-crappy" Wikis Fennec told you about. -- VV 00:44, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I actually removed the reference to Ponchaud, because his work wasn't very scientific, although there is no doubt he was broadly correct and deserves credit for drawing the world's attention to the Khmer Rouge atrocities. The current article gives more recent sources based on systematic research, but you continue to drag in this irrelevant canard about Ponchaud. This just demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty and propagandistic intent. And there is nothing "right wing" about setting out the full facts about the KR regime. Is mudering a million people somehow "left wing"? Adam 01:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The so-called irrelevant canard about Ponchaud is that before I started editting this page, the sentence "Depending on the source a reported 15% to 40% of the population died between 1975 and 1979 (500,000 to 2,000,000 people)." appeared. The two million figure appeared in many news stories, almost all of them either referencing Ponchaud or referencing someone who referenced Ponchaud. The only problem is that Ponchaud did not start the two million figure at the CPK takeover in 1975 but before that. Ponchaud is anti-CPK, and in this case, people can't even get their own sides references straight. That is why I use it as an example - whoever editted the page before took an anti-CPK piece of work, and went even beyond what that said, manufacturing the idea that these deaths started in 1975 so it could all be blamed on the CPK. Also, the 2 million figure is not even sourced or footnoted, so it became up to me to discover it came from Ponchaud (and quickly spread throughout the media, any secondary source it is in was originally from him). So the information was false, and did not even have a reference. Anyone who wants to go to the library and pick up Ponchaud's book can see I am correct. To my eyes these errors look like "propaganda", and me correcting them looks like setting the record straight. All anyone has to do is crack open his book to know what he said. I point all of this out to show that this concept that what I am writing is propaganda is false, I have been correcting errors. Because of my prodding, I suppose a compromise (for now) without such an error is the current page now exists. My point is that this accusation that I have been making propaganda here since I came is false and that is but one egregious example.

As far as the current page, which Adam Carr seems to want to focus on which is fine by me, there are a number of disputes. Within the page, should the Khmer Rouge be called by the name they gave themselves or by the slur attributed to them? When the Vietnamese/Kampuchean fight started heating up, the people who left Cambodia for Vietnam were mostly ethnic Vietnamese. VeryVerily wants to remove this information for some reason. The incredibly non-NPOV picture of people executed under the CPK government is on the page. If this is to remain, I would ask the person desiring it make a portrait of the people executed under the stead of the US Republican party be posted on that page - if it remains there, it can remain here, I think this is fair. Or should it only be pointed out when slanty-eyed red gooks do it? I mean, the people executed in the US are criminals! The non-NPOV xenophobia is put here, as if the desire for the CPK to become autonomous and get the US who had been bombing them continually, or the French who had run a brutal colonialist regime was "xenophobia". This is like saying French citizens who didn't like their Nazi occupiers were "xenophobic". Then there are such things as saying the CPK did this or that "by force", "by gunpoint". Is there any government that does not ultimately do whatever they do by gunpoint?

People pay rent to their landlords under the threat of government force and at gunpoint. Mentioning it here and not in hundreds of other places on Wikipedia is not NPOV. And so on and so forth. Of course, VeryVerily has shown he has no interest in any discussion of any of the issues. He seems to notice an edit not to his liking, look through that users history and he starts reverting leaving "rv" in the explanation and no discussion - anything more than that is a special gift. Thankfully, people have been limited to three reverts per day, I'll have to check if he is keeping to that. Hanpuk 14:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Agreed, that every government forces some behavior on the people, Hanpuk; it is, however, depended on _WHAT_ are the people being forced that differs the 'normal' governments from criminals. For example, few people would protest the traffic lights (though obedience to them is being 'forced', at gunpoint, if necessary), while the law requiring all women between 18 and 25 to have sex with the policemen (who would be allowed to force them to it whenever they wanted to) would probably be called as "inhuman", "tyrannic" and "violation of the essential human liberty". Similiarly, there IS a huge difference between forcing people to pay taxes and forcing them out of their homes for no compensation, and in the conditions that threaten their lives. Nobody sane would ever prohibit people from taking at least some of their goods along at the 'evacuation'. Critto

---

Deaths under the CPK

Hanpuk, you have yet to answer the questions on the History of Camodia talk page. You are the one who is challanging accepted history, and you are not providing evidence for this challange. All you've done is get angry about personalities and (for some reason) rail against Catholics. Your proof for these changes, listed two archives back, is by Noam Chomsky, a contentious figure in his own right.

Why is Chomsky singled out for this sort of abuse? I have not read the discussion on the "History of Cambodia" talk page, but Chomsky, whatever one may think of him, does cite his sources. A lot of things in "accepted history" are wrong, and it is far out of line to reject evidence on the sole grounds that the person offering it is "contentious". Shorne 18:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I stated (and you have ignored) in the History of Cambodia talk page:

As I understand the accepted version of recent Cambodian history, VeryVeryly's edition is correct. Hanpuk needs to provide more sources if the article is to reflect his opinions. The briefest of searches across the Internet leads to estimates of the dead near or well above the million mark.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/cambodia_history.asp

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/banyan3.htm

http://park.org/Thailand/MoreAboutAsia/cambodia/history.html

http://www.visit-mekong.com/cambodia/background/history.htm

http://www.newint.org/issue242/simply.htm

http://www.cambcomm.org.uk/holocaust.html

You are trying to alter what is accepted history. This is fine, and why there are historians. But, you must meet a high benchmark of proof to convince this community. You've not done this yet. I am going to revert parts of the page and continue to do so until you meet that high standard of proof. Rather than get upset, I suggest that you go about finding this proof before coming back here to change these series of articles again. Stargoat 15:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's concentrate on the number of deaths before moving onto any other matters. In the section "The Khmer Rouge in power", paragraphs 2 and 3 deal with this. Adam Carr wrote both paragraphs. I have more of a problem with paragraph 2 than 3. Paragraph 3 at least gives references to what is being claimed, which paragraph 2 does not. Let's have a look-see - here is paragraph 2 and 3, I will be concentrating on 2:

"This policy, known as 'Year Zero', resulted in the deaths of a huge number of Cambodians through executions, overwork and starvation. The Khmer Rouge regime also systematically executed anyone with connections to the former government, professionals and intellectuals, and the ethnic Vietnamese population. The Khmer Rouge regime was responsible for the deaths of a higher proportion of its own country's population than any regime in modern history. The lowest estimates put the proportion who died at 10%. A more credible estimate is 20 to 25%, this achieved in only four years in power. The term democide is commonly applied to the Khmer Rouge's policies.

The exact number of people who died as a result of the Khmer Rouge's policies is debated. The regime which succeeded the Khmer Rouge claimed that 3.3 million had died, but this figure has little credibility. The CIA estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were executed by the Khmer Rouge, but executions represented only a minority of the death toll, which mostly came from starvation. Three sources, United States Department of State, Amnesty International and the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, give estimates of 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively. R. J. Rummel gives a figure of 2 million. Former Khmer Rouge leaders Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot, who could be expected to give underestimations, give figures of 1 million and 800,000, respectively. An estimate of 1.5 million (from a total population of about 7 million in 1975) seems a reasonable consensus."

OK, "The Khmer Rouge regime was responsible for the deaths of a higher proportion of its own country's population than any regime in modern history. The lowest estimates put the proportion who died at 10%. A more credible estimate is 20 to 25%, this achieved in only four years in power." What are we being told here? That the CPK is responsible for anyone who died of malnourishment in Cambodia in 1975. The fact that people were dying of malnourishment prior to the CPK takeover (and that was while Cambodia was getting humanitarian aid, which was immediately cut off when the CPK took over). That American air force bombing drove farmers into the cities, thus their farms were left unplanted, and thus there was no food to feed the farmers or the people in the cities. Then, the CPK doing the most logical thing imaginable and getting people to grow their own food instead of starve is made to be insane. Most of the people who died either died shortly after the CPK takeover, or in the Cambodia border area shortly before the Vietnamese invasion. The lion's share of deaths were either related to the American bombardment and the cutoff of humanitarian aid in the beginning, or the border conflict that precipitaed the Vietnamese invasion in the end. I'm sure if the CPK had not sent farmers back to the farms, there would be accusations that they had starved millions of Cambodians to death by keeping them trapped in the cities like prisons. Whatever they do they lose in people dead-set against the people who liberated their section of Indochina from foreign colonialism and the puppets of foreign colonialists.

Anyhow, all blame for malnourishment deaths are laid at the feet of the CPK from the day they take power, the famine conditions they inherited, with the immediate cutoff of humanitarian aid preventing a famine previously being the icing on the cake. Then we hear that the lowest estimate of people who died solely due to CPK policy is 10% of Cambodia's population. A more "credible" estimate is 20-25%. According to who? This is all totally unsourced and presented as fact, with some omniscient narrator determining which deaths are due to CPK policy and which aren't. At least the paragraph afterwards gives some sources. The lowest estimate is not 10% either, certainly if the criteria is people who died solely due to CPK policy resulting in execution, starvation or overwork. On that basis, the lowest estimate is much lower. The third paragraph at least sources the material, the second paragraph where numbers are just invented, where some omniscient author has the ability to determine who died to CPK policy and who didn't, and it's a fact beyond dispute, and who knows which percentages are credible and which aren't - I mean, this is just junk. Hanpuk 17:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

There are certainly some problems in the text that could be addressed. But you must realize that your views run completely counter to the historical consensus, no matter how much you believe in them, and substantial sources back up that consensus, which you have only dismissively addressed. (Your arguments thus appear to be "original research", and are not dissimilar in status to the Holocaust deniers.) Furthermore you will not get anywhere if you (a) continue your personal attacks on me and Adam, (b) refuse to abide by the "common names" policy which states that the English encyclopedia should use the names used by and familiar to English speakers, and (c) do not acknowledge the points and responses made by several users, including me. You are harming your own credibility and not getting anywhere in terms of changing the article. (And your love for the Khmer Rouge is bizarre; I think what one anon wrote, "I suspect that what Hanpuk needs to do is actually go to Cambodia and visit the Documentation Center in Phnom Penh and one of the many killing fields to convince himself that these crimes did in fact take place. He would find it very convincing. Substituting ideological commitment and scepticism about the morality of the U.S. government for well established historical fact is politically immature", may be right on.) -- VV 21:31, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

You're the one making ad hominem attacks. I certainly don't harbour any love for the CPK (and, yes, that is their official name; there's nothing wrong with using it), but I have to say that Hanpuk made his points rationally, while you merely defended "the historical consensus" and threw personal insults about. Shorne 18:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Thanks to VV for saving me saying all that. My experience is that there are essentially two kinds of people editing history and politics articles at Wikipedia: those who want to write legitimate encyclopaedia articles, and those who want to write propaganda. Most of these are nationalists of various kinds, but old-time Stalinist apologists make up a significant minority of them. Hunpuk is evidently one of these. The only way to deal with these people is to revert them on sight, without disucssion, until they get bored and go and pester someone else. Adam 00:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't even deserve an answer. Shorne 18:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as the substantial sources you speak of that back this or that up, perhaps instead of being in the back they should come up front where we can see them. The second paragraph above (The 3rd in the "KR in power" section) points to sources while the first (2nd in the article "KR in power" section) has almost none, and is written in a much more unsourced, POV manner than the one after it. It appears they were both written by Adam Carr - he writes a very sloppy, POV, unsourced paragraph, with one following that can at least be worked with. The first (article 2nd) paragraph arguments appear to me to be "original research", at least as it stands. I have sources for everything I write. You keep making these general allusions about everything, but you are not specific about ANYTHING - "your views run completely counter..." (which views?) "substantial sources back up..." (then why aren't they in the article or a footnote?) "points and responses by several users..." (what points?). Even the reference to naming is vague, but I know enough that this is probably regarding the name CPK or Khmer Rouge. As far as personal attacks, that is the pot calling the kettle black, but I will disregard that beyond it as I am simply trying to make the Cambodia articles factual and NPOV. As far as the points brought up by users, I am quite concerned with working with Stargoat as I was with The Anome before you began trying to poison the well with him by personal attacks on me including posts to his user page. I don't know what correcting factual errors has to do with "love for the CPK". As far as visiting sites, why go to sites in Cambodia where you say Cambodians were tortured years ago when I can go to Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay and see what American soldiers are doing right now? Hanpuk 04:46, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself, can you? That last remark reveals more beautifully than anything I or anyone else could do what your real priorities and agenda here are. Adam 06:05, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, more personal attacks. Anyone who parts ways with some ill-defined "historical consensus" must have ulterior motives. An impartial reader seeing this discussion would have to say that Hanpuk wins in a breeze. Shorne 18:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Quote:

The Khmer Rouge are generally held responsible for the deaths of at least a million people during their rule.

This statement does not belong at the top of the article. It is like saying at the top of an article on the Clinton administration in the US that "Clinton is generally held responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of thousands of children during his rule"—leaving the reader to suppose that Clinton ran around all day whacking heads off with a machete. It is entirely appropriate and desirable to mention deaths and other violence under the Khmer Rouge, but not in the form of a pot shot. Shorne 18:30, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The opening paragraph to any in depth wiki article is a brief synopsis of the most important features and noteworthy aspects of a particular subject. The KR will always be remembered primarily for its brutality and genocide rather than any other feature of it. TDC 18:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Then say that. Shorne 18:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will say that and more. TDC 19:00, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Autogenocide

I've reinstated the note of this word. The text merely says that this term is sometimes used, which it definitely is; I've seen it quite often. I tend to agree it has accuracy issues, but this is reporting usage, not endorsing it, and I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it. The Genocide article also notes the broader (but less canonical) use as "mass killings". -- VV 00:47, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Grrr. It's a very stupid usage, but if it's used I suppose we have to note it. However if the word exists it ought to be linked as [[autogenocide]] or [[genocide|autogenocide]], rather than auto[[genocide]], which is ugly and suggests it isn't a real word. Adam 07:50, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

rv 62.252.192.5's edit

Adam, why did you revert 62.252.192.5's edit?

Because this article is not a History of Cambodia. The date of the founding of the Cambodian monarchy and whether or not Lon Nol was backed by the CIA are not relevant to this article. The other points 62 makes are just rewordings of the existing text and add no new relavant information. Adam 04:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One or two sentence background on the political situation for a political event isn't unreasonable. It adds to the article. Of course, a reader should examine History of Cambodia, but the Khmer Rouge article doesn't make much sense without that prefunctory political introduction. Stargoat 04:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I call everythingism, which is one of Wikipedia's main faults. Everythingism is the tendency for all articles to gradually expand both in size and in range of topics covered as users add more and more material each piece of which is increasingly irrelevant to the original topic, but is relevant to the most recent addition. If events in the 9th century are relevant to an article about the Khmer Rouge, what is not relevant? Unless this process in resisted, every article at Wikipedia will eventually be History and description of the universe. Adam 04:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thankfully, that isn't a threat here yet. The political background is a must, if the events of the rise of the Khmer Rouge are to be understood. Stargoat 10:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)