Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The struggle for NPOV

I am trying hard to salvage an article that is completely POV. A reasonable reader completely ignorant of the Khmer Rouge would, upon reading this article, ask himself the following questions:

• How did the Khmer Rouge come to power and retain control over the entire country if no one supported it?
• How is it that the youth of Cambodia know nothing of atrocities that were so singularly wicked? (I ended up removing the statement about the youth of Cambodia because it was not backed with any evidence.)
• How is it that many of the current leaders of Cambodia were involved in the Khmer Rouge's activities?
• Why did Sihanouk support a party that obviously was not going to restore a monarchy to Cambodia?

He might well conclude that the whole article is feeble propaganda—what we more politely call POV.

One important piece of information that is nowhere to be found is the fact that the US supported the Khmer Rouge financially and otherwise. I hope that I won't be accused of "propaganda" outside the "historical consensus" for mentioning this little tidbit. Shorne 21:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, the US and APAC opposition to a Vietnamese puppet government in Cambodia is the same thing as supporting the KR? Would this mean that by extension that the Vietnamese were also guilt of supporting the KR after 1979 because the majority of the new puppet government that Vietnam setup in 1979 was comprised of KR officials?

Do we also mention the chorus of western leftists ( Chomsky, Gareth Porter, Herman, Hildebrand etc…) who rallied around the KR before 1979.

Do we mention that North Vietnam sent large numbers of troops into Eastern Cambodia (the KR's stronglhold in the late 60's and early 70's) to aid the KR insurgency? Or that the NVA had maintained a large presence in eastern Cambodia for years prior to the beginning of the Khmer Rouge war in 1967 and trained KR foot soldiers for asymmetrical warfare?

Do we mention that Lee Kuan Yew stated that China was the only country that had given direct aid to the Khmer Rouge in the form of cash and weapons?

Do we also mention that despite the bullshit allegations that Reagan aided Pol Pot the Cambodian refugee community has been almost unanimous in its support of him? [1]

Do we also point out that Reagan was one of the only national politicians of the 1970s to speak out loudly against Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and was called a paranoid lunatic and a liar for it until the evidence became irrefutable.

Fact is the prime source for allegations of US funding the KR after 1979, come from John Pilger. Pilger’s biggest mistake it that he makes the leap that because the US funded NGO’s that supplied food to refugees along the Thai Cambodia border, and that some of those refugees were KR that we were in effect supplying and supporting the KR. Pilger also seems content to lump every single political faction, some of which the US and APAC did support, into the same category. Pilger presented a picture that the political opposition to the Vietnamese puppet government was this monolithic force and was all run by Pol Pot and the KR; nothing could be further from the truth. The opposition was very wide and mainly non communist. TDC 22:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ on roller skates! Some people just cannot deal with reality.

I am marking the article {{Long NPOV}} until the right-wing propagandists acquire a bit of intellectual integrity. Shorne 22:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boy does this conversation sound familiar. I'll come back in a day or two and see about fixing up the latest round of whitewashing. VV 23:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you nothing of substance to say? Just like the person who keeps inserting "killed" into the page?

It's obvious that several people here insist on passing off their anti Khmer Rouge propaganda as the truth. The article positively reeks of POV and is not going to get any better when any hint that there is another side to the issues gets squelched as "whitewashing".

I'll say this, too: I am not in the least a supporter of the Khmer Rouge, but I do feel that accuracy and NPOV are worthy goals of an encyclopædia. That position evidently sets me apart from the censors who control this article. Shorne 23:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everything of substance has already been said multiple times. There are not two archives of this Talk for nothing, and that's not counting all the other Cambodia pages. VV 23:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What in God's name do you mean I have nothing to say? I have stated before that the intro paragraph contains the most important / most noteworthy information on the subject. Certainly the killing of at least 1 million people, the largest per capita of any nation this century, surely qualifies. I would also love to see an example of anti-KR propaganda that is in the article.

This should be good.TDC 02:01, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

You keep inserting a line about people "killed" without even discussing it. I tried to tone something down that said merely "deaths", and you magnify it to "killed".

Again, there is a place for this sort of discussion, and that is later in the article, where it can be conducted in the detail that it deserves. Merely asserting "one million killed" at the top of the article is propaganda. If you want the crimes to be understood, you will not reduce the article to a sound bite. Shorne 02:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

If Shorne (who I presume is Hanpuk under another name) thinks he is going to be allowed to wreck this article again he is mistaken. Adam 02:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had never heard of Hanpuk until today. Your allegation is outrageous. And it is you who are wrecking the article by blithely throwing away useful information. Shorne 02:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not you are Hanpuk, you share his ideological position, and your attempts to whitewash this article, like his, will be resisted. No "useful information" has been deleted by my reversion. Adam 03:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are off the beam. You are also 'way out of line. From your own statements, it is clear to all that the issue to you is ideology, not the facts or NPOV. You know nothing about me or my ideology. I suggest that you stop throwing groundless accusations around and censoring changes wholesale.

I want to see this article protected from the two or three petulant vandals here who won't allow anyone to say anything at all that doesn't match their opinions. Their intransigence shows that they cannot participate in the development of an honest, factual, NPOV article that all reasonable people will consider acceptable.

Christ. These people are more tyrannical than the Khmer Rouge. Shorne 05:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Censorship by Mr Carr

Adam Carr promised to revert my future changes to a broad range of articles. Please see the proof for yourselves at User talk:Shorne. Shorne 05:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is obvious from reading your additions to this page that you are either Hanpuk or a clone of him. Either way, your intent here is simply to spew Khmer Rouge propaganda, and this will be reverted, if not by me then by someone else. Spare us your pious crap about censorship, we've heard it all before from you people and it draws no tears. Adam 05:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense. Why don't you go off and hunt for reds under the beds? It'll be a more fruitful endeavour than trying to link me with this Hanpuk person or with "Khmer Rouge propaganda". As for my intent, it is to add balance to a blatantly one-sided article on an important historical subject that is widely misrepresented with ever-mounting "death tolls" that are probably in the quadrillions by now. I have said a number of times that I do not approve of the Khmer Rouge. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the face, but you will still be wrong.

Yours is a facile excuse to censor people out of hand. Did you learn the technique from the Khmer Rouge's ministry of information?

I shall not waste any more time on you; I do not find these exchanges stimulating or satisfying in the slightest. The public can see how incorrigible you are. Shorne 06:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Adam, at least I dont have to deal with this on my own. TDC 17:28, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

There's a problem when you have to keep insisting that you don't support the Khmer Rouge. Supreme Moolah of Iran 03:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That problem is that certain people insist on labelling me, often in fora far removed from this one, with all kinds of incorrect labels. Shorne 07:02, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that you are a fool. Adam 07:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oct. 1st-2nd Dispute

I'd like to move towards some kind of mediation on this article.

The categories below are the subjects that I think are being disputed. Please state your arguments under the appropriate header.

I ask that all users follow wikiquette and completely avoid personal attacks. Make your arguments on the content of the article, not on the character of those with whom you disagree. Cite a source whenever possible. Feel free to add categories and sub-categories for clarity. -GuloGuloGulo 06:32, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

If the others are seriously interested in coöperating on the preparation of a factual, NPOV article, I shall be happy to cite some sources. Otherwise, I shall not waste my time. See below, however, for a summary of the issues. Shorne 07:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Solution to these problems

Hey folks. It's gotten really ugly in here. We're openly insulting each other, and that's not going to solve any problems. But we can still work together to solve these problems.

M. Shorne, your edits are contrary to what is generally accepted as the truth. I do not believe that you support the Khmer Rouge, or its actions, but your edits appear to be extremely focused on problems caused by American intervention, to the point of ignoring other, possible more important, factors. Let's hear proof for what you believe to be the truth. The article was in one way before you arrived. If you want to make such radical changes, let's see the documentation, and then talk on the changes.

Mr. Carr, perhaps we can integrate some of Shorne's edits into the article. Although he has removed much that belongs, there are accusations of US support, which if supported by adequate documentation, should be in the article.

I believe that both sides involved in these edits have been removing potentially useful information. Let us see what we can do to change this. Stargoat 21:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stargoat, thanks for your efforts to bring a little civility to this war-torn region of Wikipedia. I certainly don't support the Khmer Rouge. If my edits seem to be focused on the US's rôle, that is because the article was plainly one-sided and made almost no mention of this very important factor (and several others).

I shall cite sources if there is genuine interest in preparing a decent article. If some people won't have anything but a one-sided propaganda piece, however, forget it.

Here's a condensed version of what happened in Cambodia.

First, Cambodia is a small country. The population was only 6 million in 1970, and today it is only 11 million. That alone should suggest that claims of 2 or 3 million "killed" in four years are completely absurd. How would a country with at most 3 million people in 1979 grow to 11 million in 25 years? Remotely possible but terribly unlikely.

Second, as is now well known—and was well known even at the time—, the United States extended its war against Vietnam into Cambodia and Laos. It is widely accepted that about 600 000 or 700 000 Cambodians were killed in the US's attacks from 1970 to 1975. Note that that's 10% of the population right there.

Third, the US's bombing of the countryside drove some 2 million peasants into the cities. They were fleeing for their lives. Obviously crops were not being planted or harvested when so much of the rural population was not on the farms. The US had to send food to sustain the puppet régime of Lon Nol.

Fourth, the Khmer Rouge ousted Lon Nol in 1975, taking advantage of the disturbances and destruction wrought by the US. Of course, US aid was cut off immediately. The country had been destroyed, the cities were clogged with refugees, the countryside was littered with unexploded ordnance, Vietnam was still fighting at the border, and there was very little food to be had. Lots of people starved to death. The Khmer Rouge is routinely blamed for these deaths even though it inherited a hopeless situation.

Fifth, the Khmer Rouge is often criticised for forcing people out of the cities and into the fields. When there simply was not enough food to go around, they didn't really have much choice. They probably saved lots of lives by taking that measure, yet you won't often read that in the Western press. There seems to be a common belief that urban residents belong in cushy offices while rural ones should languish under the sun transplanting rice seedlings.

Sixth, it is true that the Khmer Rouge executed a lot of people. The numbers, however, come to nothing so high as the millions that are frequently cited. Such figures usually record deaths from all causes as "killings" by the Khmer Rouge, an obviously unfair practice.

Seventh, the US did send financial support to the Khmer Rouge, from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. It's an awfully peculiar "communist" government that would be funded by the US. The Khmer Rouge was deposed in 1979 by the invading Vietnamese army, which set up a puppet régime; but the Khmer Rouge continued to fight, with abundant assistance from the United States.

Two million is a good estimate for the total number of people who died in the 1970s of all causes: warfare, warfare-induced famine, and the Khmer Rouge's activities. As has been shown, the US is directly responsible for 600 000 or more of those deaths from warfare alone and probably most of the others for the destruction that it wrought.

It should also be pointed out that the large amount of unexploded ordnance dropped on Cambodia by the US in the early 1970s continues to kill and maim a thousand or more Cambodians every year. Landmines laid by the many factions fighting over control of Cambodia account for many hundreds of casualties per year as well. Cambodia has signed the Ottawa Treaty to ban landmines. The US refuses to do so. Shorne 09:00, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here are the version of events as generally understood, addressed to match Shorne's.

1 - The population of Cambodia in 1970 generally accepted is closer to 8 million.

2 - The United States did not begin bombing more than 10 miles from Vietnam for quite some time. Furthermore, it would be physically impossible for bombings to kill that many people. Nor is there any evidence from the time that it was occurring in those numbers.

3 - It was North Vietnamese activies, not the US bombing, that drove people into city. Indeed, Prince Norodom Sihanouk has been quoted as saying that he had no idea the US bombing was occurring. None of the citizens of his country were in the area were the bombing was taking place; they had been driven into the city by the Vietnamese. The US aggressively sought out Vietnamese strongholds. The Vietnamese keep the area around those strongholds clear of Cambodian civilians, using AK-47 rounds to do so.

4 - The countryside was littered with ordance from the North Vietnamese attempting to hold back the Americans, and from the Khmer Rouge's attack against the Combodian regular forces. The Americans were not as involved in the combat as the Khmer Rouge. Further, the Americans had talked with the Khmer Rouge about bringing food in. American aid was only finally shut down when the Khmer Rouge attacked American vessels, with food aboard, IIRC. Furthermore, it was the Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese that was responsible for most of the devistation of the Cambodian countryside. Let's try and come to grips with reality. B-52s cannot do the kind of damage you are talking about.

5 - The Khmer Rouge made a conscious choice about a classless society. Mao did the same thing in China. City dwellers were sent to the countryside to work, to "humble" them.

6 - Starving a person on purpose is the same as killing them.

7 - I'll need to see some proof on this one. It wouldn't surprise me, but I'd like to see some proof. The way I understand it is that most of the support for the Khmer Rouge actually came from China. Furthermore, Vietnam was running up and down the countryside at that time, keeping things relatively safe. (note relatively)

Summary - You've not presented any documentation Most of the claims presented appear quite outlandish to me, and the version of events I am familiar with. The claim of 600,000 dead with only US conventional air dropped weapons is also unrealistic, at best. Shorne, thank you for conducting your summary with good faith. But we'll need to see documentation. Stargoat 12:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If Shorne needs to provide documentation, why don't you need to? GuloGuloGulo 19:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne is attempting to change what is already in the article. These points have been gone over multiple times in the past. He is trying to change what has already been (through much debate, I might add) agreed upon. Therefore, the onus is upon him to present the proof. Stargoat 20:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good job taking the time to (once again) refute the deniers point by point. I just wanted to say in response to 7 that it is usual for American humanitarian relief aid to later be perverted by villains into "support for the (oppressive) regime". For instance, this is the basis for Michael Moore's claim that the US gave umpteen million dollars to the Taliban. VeryVerily 12:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Phrases like "perverted by villains" help no one. GuloGuloGulo 19:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

What's the right way to talk about someone who talks about American aid to the hungry and homeless so as to paint it as blood money used to persecute and murder? VeryVerily 22:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With civility and polite discussion. If you disagree with someone, that's all well and good. Just try following Wikiquette, don't personally attack or label people. Focus on the article. GuloGuloGulo 01:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Shorne is not denying. He's just questioning the version of events that caused the massive deaths. Stargoat 13:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to whom is that version "generally understood"? There's no question but that the US actively bombed Cambodia; it's all well documented, and even the US doesn't deny it anymore (although Kissinger & Cie lied about it as long as they could, the bastards). The fact is confirmed in the most grisly way by numerous deaths and injuries every month, and anyone who has worked in the removal of this matériel can tell you that the US put it there. Certainly Vietnam was not flying airplanes galore over Cambodia and dropping bombs marked "USA" in the early 1970s.

Nor does the United States deny the funding of the Khmer Rouge, now that it has been exposed. Brzezinski has admitted to passing funds through China, and aid to the Khmer Rouge was also delivered under the auspices of the UN over the Thai border (as confirmed by the few journalists who slipped in on UN trucks). See http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf, for example.

As for your point 6, it's nothing but propaganda. Who was starved "on purpose"? There was a massive food shortage, as I said. You don't even address the destruction that caused the famine.

I'm sorry I wasted my time. Don't expect me to do so again. I will not, however, tolerate any slanted, non-factual article on this subject or any other. Shorne 15:05, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've looked through the article. The only real claim that it makes is that the Americans had offered food through the UN, and might have encouraged the Chinese to arm the Cambodians. Look, if you want to make the changes to the article that you're suggesting, we're going to need more proof.

If you want me to address the cause of the famine, I will. The famine was caused by the war that the Khmer Rouge waged against the government, and the North Vietnamese activities inside Cambodia. During the Vietnam War, the United States was responding to events in Cambodia, not the other way around. As for on purpose, the same thing happened during the cultural revolution. The real farmers would see that the real farmers got fed. The new comers got the scraps. They were starved on purpose.

As for "Certainly Vietnam was not flying airplanes galore over Cambodia and dropping bombs marked "USA" in the early 1970s", I would say you might be willfully ignoring objective truth. The US bombers were not capable of driving people off their lands, but divisions of North Vietnamese soldiers were. By the time the bombings by the Americans began, there were no Cambodians to drive away. The North Vietnamese had already done so. Stargoat 17:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, there's no shortage of proof. I'll quote some when the article is unprotected, although I fully expect you to gainsay it on bogus grounds. For now, however, I have no desire to waste time in a hopeless discussion with people who utterly deny what is solidly established and make up disgusting crap about "[s]tarving a person on purpose". Shorne 18:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the idea is to show documentation in the talk pages first, especially with disputed claims, so that the sources can be discussed and verified. Also, simply claiming that something is "solidly established" or "generally understood" doesn't make it so, you both need to show us and the readers of Wikipedia some kind of evidence. GuloGuloGulo 19:21, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

GuloGuloGulo, I've addressed the lack of need for documentation from my position above. To reiterate, Shorne is attempting to make changes to an already long argued over article. The onus is upon the person changing the article to provide proof in support of the changes. Shorne has not done so, and probably is not capable of doing so.

Nevertheless, as it is not difficult and will not take much time so I will be happy to provide support for my position.

1. http://www.yale.edu/cgp/ - 1.7 million dead in a Genocide.
2. http://www.yale.edu/gsp/publications/KiernanRevised1.pdf - Population estimated by the UN to be at approximately 8 million with about 1.7 million dead
3. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/k/khmerr1ou.asp - 1.5 million dead.
4. http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/khmer.htm - 2 million
5. http://www.endgenocide.org/genocide/cambodia.htm 1 to 3 million
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3712482.stm at least 1 million

It is not necessary to go on. The events in the article are the events that are generally understood to be correct. If Shorne wishes to change the article as radically as he tried, he can, but he will need to make a strong case to do so. Stargoat 20:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

GuloGuloGulo, I agree completely. I'll be glad to see the evidence that the US dropped no ordnance on Cambodia and did not kill hundreds of thousands of Cambodians, that the North Vietnamese were responsible, that there were no Cambodians in the parts of Cambodia that the US bombed, that the US intended to supply the Khmer Rouge with food from the beginning, that the Khmer Rouge attacked US supply ships bringing food, and that millions of people were singled out for a grim death by starvation. I'll quote sources for my claims once some of this crap is backed up, but not before. I'm sick of wasting my time on naysayers who would claim that $2+2=17{1 \over 2}$ if it suited their convenience. Shorne 20:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why all of the things you mentioned should have to be sourced, they do not appear in the article. The absence of events in the article is not the same thing as the denial of events. GuloGuloGulo 21:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Some sources on the Khmer Rouge and the United States

I can track down more information at the library, but this will do for the time being:

• [2]. Establishes population at roughly 6.5 million in 1970. This supports my claim #1 about the population. According to the census of 1981, the population was 6.3 million. I defy anyone to tell me how three million people were killed by 1979 when the population was 6.3 million two years later. Note also the useful reference to Kimmo Kiljunen, ed., Kampuchea: Decade of the genocide—report of a Finnish inquiry commission (London, 1984), which says that total deaths during the Khmer Rouge's rule were at most 1 million. This is consistent with the Khmer Rouge's own estimate, for which see below.

• [3]. At the time of the Khmer Rouge's rise to power in 1975, Phnom Penh's population, "numbering 2.5 million people, included as many as 1.5 million wartime refugees living with relatives or in shantytowns around the urban center". More Cambodian refugees from the countryside lived in other cities. This defends my claim #3 of 2 million rural refugees in the cities. Moreover, "[a]side from the alleged threat of United States air strikes, the Khmer Rouge justified the evacuations [of the cities] in terms of the impossibility of transporting sufficient food to feed an urban population of between 2 and 3 million people." This supports my claim #5. (Yes, there were other reasons for the evacuation, some of which are mentioned in this source. But it is absurd to deny that Cambodia had enough food and the means to get it to the cities when so much of the infrastructure had been destroyed.)

• [4]. This article cites multiple estimates of total deaths during the period 1975–1979. The widely touted figure of three million comes from the PRK, the puppet régime installed by the invading Vietnamese in 1979. Some Catholic cleric claims 2.3 million. Amnesty International (1.4 million), the US Department of State (1.2 million), and (surprise!) the Khmer Rouge (0.8–1.2 million) roughly agree. In addition, "[a]s is evident from the accounts of refugees, the greatest causes of death were hunger, disease, and exposure. Many city people could not survive the rigors of life in the countryside, the forced marches, and the hard physical labor. People died from the bites of venomous snakes, drowned in flooded areas during the rainy season, and were killed by wild beasts in jungle areas. Many fell victim to malaria. Others died in the fighting between Vietnam and Cambodia in 1978 and in 1979. Nonetheless, executions accounted for hundreds of thousands of victims and perhaps for as many as 1 million." Note that "perhaps … as many as 1 million" is only possible if we embrace the estimate of the Vietnamese invaders, for there is no space for a million executions in (to take the highest of the consistent estimates) 1.4 million total deaths if "the greatest causes" were hunger, disease, exposure, snakes, beasts, floods, and warfare.

The question of the extent to which the Khmer Rouge was influenced by Maoism and other ideologies is indeed worthy of exploration. I cannot accept a mere assertion, however, of the kind that is currently found in the article. Shorne 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• [5]. Quote: "On April 29, 1970, South Vietnamese and United States units unleashed a multi-pronged offensive into Cambodia to destroy the Central Office for South Vietnam (COSVN), the headquarters for North Vietnamese and Viet Cong combat operations in South Vietnam." Proof that it was the US and its South Vietnamese puppet, not North Vietnam, that invaded Cambodia. Furthermore, "United States bombing of enemy troop dispositions in Cambodia—particularly in the summer of 1973, when intense aerial bombardment (known as Arclight) was used to halt a Khmer Rouge assault on Phnom Penh—bought time for the Lon Nol government, but did not stem the momentum of the communist forces. United States official documents give a figure of 79,959 sorties by B-52 and F-111 aircraft over the country, during which a total of 539,129 tons of ordnance were dropped, about 350 percent of the tonnage (153,000 tons) dropped on Japan during World War II. Many of the bombs that fell in Cambodia struck relatively uninhabited mountain or forest regions; however, as declassified United States Air Force maps show, others fell over some of the most densely inhabited areas of the country, such as Siemreab Province, Kampong Chhnang Province, and the countryside around Phnom Penh. Deaths from the bombing are extremely difficult to estimate, and figures range from a low of 30,000 to a high of 500,000. Whatever the real extent of the casualties, the Arclight missions over Cambodia, which were halted in August 15, 1973, by the United States Congress, delivered shattering blows to the structure of life in many of the country's villages, and, according to some critics, drove the Cambodian people into the arms of the Khmer Rouge." Have a look at a map and tell me whether the areas cited are "10 miles from Vietnam". Also tell me how four and a half times the tonnage of bombs dropped on Japan during World War II can be denied by anyone with a yoctogramme of integrity. And tell me how B-52s, specifically cited in the preceding, "cannot do the kind of damage [I am] talking about".

• [6]. Corroborates much of the above and also states that "[t]he number of U.S.-caused deaths in the first phase [of the "genocide" of the 1970s] is comparable to, or greater than, CIA and other serious estimates of Pol Pot killings by execution (50,000–400,000)". Now we're cutting to the chase. First, the US is indeed responsible for more killings than Pol Pot's régime. Second, executions are estimated by the CIA itself at no more than 400,000. In addition, the Finnish commission that I mentioned above found that "the U.S. was the genocidist" from 1969 to 1975. "Furthermore, when the Khmer Rouge took over in April 1975, the country was shattered, starvation and disease were already rampant—8,000 people a day were dying in Phnom Penh alone—and these residual effects of phase one [when the US was the genocidist] were certain to take a toll in the years to follow. In short, focusing solely on Pol Pot and making the U.S. an innocent bystander in the Cambodian genocide requires well-constructed blinders." (Emphasis mine.)

• Ibid.: After the Vietnamese ousted the Khmer Rouge, "Pol Pot's forces found a safe haven in Thailand, a U.S. client state, and for the next 15 years or more were aided and protected there by Thai, Chinese, British, and U.S. authorities." Continued: "It is obvious that … the U.S. sponsorship of a Cambodia Documentation Center to assemble evidence solely on Pol Pot's crimes … [is] dishonest, hypocritical, and problematic." Continued: In the US, "the mainstream media handle[d] the problem of [the US's rôle in the genocide] by a virtually complete blackout". Continued: "Henry Kissinger … was … responsible for scores of thousands of deaths [in Cambodia]".

That will do for now.

I hope the case is clear. One side quotes miscellaneous death counts that don't even match and that have no context to explain them; the other has extensive evidence of death counts and a hell of a lot more besides. Shorne 22:07, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is an excellent start. Thanks. GuloGuloGulo 01:41, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. Shorne 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mess

Hello,

After slugging my way through the mess that is this discussion page, I have one thing I'd like to bring up. Part of the famine in Cambodia was caused by the Khmer Rouge having to send food shipments to China in return for arms. This was discussed in Loung Ung's "First They killed My Father". Also, I do not support a Wikipedia article turning into a ground for a political battle ground. I am not saying that the US did not arm or involve itself with the Khmer Rouge, but references to support such a bold statement is required. It is not necessarily incorrect, but merely bold. It is something that I have never encountered in my reading on Cambodian history, which is not to say that it is incorrect, I just want to know where such a theory came from before it is included.

Also, there is absolutely no need for anyone to be taking pot shots at anyone. This is an encyclopaedia article, people! I also wanted to say That yes, it is established that the US bombed Cambodia, but that the scale of the bombing is disputed between different sources, and a conclusion between different sources must be reached instead of trying to out claim one another. Let's all find sources about the US involvement in Cambodia.\

128.122.90.121 23:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you've "never encountered" US support of the Khmer Rouge post-1979, then you haven't read much about Cambodia (or perhaps you have, but they're all from Readers Digest books or something). Ruy Lopez 00:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to concur. This is public information now (it got leaked). There's really no need for sources any more than there is a need for references to the fact that Cambodia is in Asia. Anyway, I provided some sources above. Happy reading. Shorne 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kissinger/Nixon Transcripts

Interesting evidence contained in the Kissinger Telcons. [7]

[8] Nixon ordered Kissinger to direct bombing attacks on North Vietnamese forces there "tomorrow." He wanted to "hit everything there", using the "big planes" and the "small planes." "I don't want any screwing around."

[9] A few minutes later after receiving Nixon's call on Cambodia, Kissinger telephoned his military assistant Alexander Haig about the orders from "our friend." After he described Nixon's instructions for a "massive bombing campaign" involving "anything that flys [or] anything that moves", the notetaker apparently heard Haig "laughing." Both Haig and Kissinger knew that what Nixon had ordered was logistically and politically impossible so they translated it into a plan for massive bombing in a particular district (not identifiable because the text is incomplete). GuloGuloGulo 22:23, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Lift protection straw poll

In an effort to bring opposing opinions into the discussion, I'd like the protection of this page to be lifted in hope that:

• Changes are made incrementally, so that objections can be made more specifically.
• Any changes that are reverted are not re-reverted, but rather moved to the discussion section where assertations and objections can be voiced.
• Any user reverting changes and refusing to participate in discussions is entered into mediation.
• True disagreements also seek mediation.

Yea:

1. GuloGuloGulo 01:57, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
2. Shorne 02:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. TDC 03:02, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Comments:

As I have been wholly coöperative, fair-minded, and honest from the beginning, I have no objections whatsoever to the proposal. Shorne 02:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, I unprotected it. Be cautious in editing. Everyking 16:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone want to make a bet on how long this article will remain open before the people who had neither references of their own nor comments on the ones that I cited will go back to their old POV-pushing ways? Shorne 23:20, 10 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 10:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

article

This article is an exercise in what NPOV is not. It is a long attempt to demonize a group, with no reference to any kind of source, facts and whatnot. The only anti-Khmer Rouge thing in this article which is not just an opinion but a sourced fact is what various organizations said the death toll in the country was under the Khmer Rouge. This I left in because it is a fact - according to the poster, Amnesty International said 1.4 million people died. This is a fact, of course, Amnesty International may be right or wrong, they may or may not attribute it to the American or Vietnamese government instead of the Cambodian government, but at least it's a source, a citation that can be argued over. The rest of the Khmer Rouge in power section is just ridiculous point of view nonsense. Ruy Lopez 02:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. The hypocrisy of those who demanded sources is now exposed by their complete silence when faced with the sources that I supplied and complete failure to supply any of their own. They never were interested in NPOV or references. Their mendacity is astounding. Shorne 02:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This written in 97 in French and answers to most of the arguments of the deniers.

http://www.kh.refer.org/cbodg_ct/decouvert_kh/culture_kh/livres/genocid.htm

Ericd 14:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily's reversions

I just want to note VeryVerily has reverted this page six times on October 11th (so far). This is in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which he has previously been banned for violating. VeryVerily is currently being considered for arbitration, with both arbitrators who have weighed in so far saying he was in need of arbitration. Ruy Lopez 20:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, or whatever your name is today, I will revert if need be a hundred times your attempt yet again to whitewash the Khmer Rouge. VeryVerily 21:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I shall cite that in my mediation/arbitration proceedings. Kindly state on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation whether you agree to mediation. "Yes" or "no" is all that you have to write. Shorne 21:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well you're up to eight reverts within 24 hours. Nice to let everyone know you're aware of your rule-breaking and just don't care. Ruy Lopez 02:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stargoat's reversion

Stargoat just now reverted a long list of changes that were entirely consistent with the recent discussion, in which he did not participate. I request intervention to protect the page from people who are not serious about truthfulness and NPOV. Shorne 01:26, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, you are making changes, mostly deleting material, to an article without checking with the community. Furthermore, you are not presenting documentation. As has already been established, THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO PRESENT DOCUMENTATION. You have presented documentation from a single source with an obvious bias. In fact, your documentation could have read Country Data, IBID IBID IBID IBID IBID IBID IBID, Third World Travel, IBID. Furthermore, the material on the site has long been discussed, been documented, and long since gone over. I will continue to revert your deletions until you present sufficient documentation to convince most of the community that the changes belong. Stargoat 20:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)Stargoat 20:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the only one who has presented any documentation. See above. Shorne 20:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was mistaken. I have changed my entry. Your documentation is so biased though as to not change the outcome. Furthermore, I have presented documentation. You just chose to ignore it. You are attempting to change what is generally accepted as the accepted version of events. There is a high threshhold to prove it. You clearly have not come to this threshhold. Stargoat 20:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone with a brain can see the feebleness of that response. Shorne 21:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Insults are not arguments. Look, if you cannot come up with something productive, please cease this pointless bickering. Stargoat 21:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing to say to you. You provided no documentation. I provided extensive documentation; you had nothing to say about it. Now you label it all biased. Well, don't expect me to swallow that. Shorne 21:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, if you had bothered to check that source, you would have seen that it was produced by the Library of Congress in the United States. Its bias is therefore pro-US. I deliberately avoided citing Chomsky, for example, because I knew that some POV-pusher would come along and wrongly accuse me of bias. Shorne 21:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, I have provided varied documentation. Please see above on the talk page. Furthermore, more documentation of the current article is provided within the article itself, also in the talk page by other editors. You have produced two sources of dubious quality. The onus is on you to produce quality sources, particularly in light of the extensive changes you are making. You have not, and cannot, do so. The deletions to the material in the article you are attempting is therefore not called for. Please cease that activity, or come up with more sources. Stargoat 21:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A cheap excuse: "quality" is what pleases you. Shorne 22:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quality is what pleases the community. This is not about me, or you. This is about making significant deletions to an article which has long been discussed and worked over. You are making these deletions unilaterally, without input from the community. Please try and build a concensus, rather than just declare that everyone except for yourself is pushing a POV. I recognize that the bar is quite high, particularly for the extensive changes you are making, but quality documentation must be presented. Thanks. Stargoat 22:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In other words, received opinion is fact and everything else is biased. In Galileo's day, the article Earth would have said "planet at the centre of the universe", and anyone offering contrary data would have been accused of "dubious quality", of "propaganda", of "POV".

There is no serious question about the quality of my documentation. You can't just smear it with black ink and consider the case closed. Shorne 22:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What you say about Galileo's day in not far off the mark. Wikipedia records the current state of human knowledge. Someone's personal theory of perpetual motion or trans-dimensional surfing, even though it may be proven right one day, does not belong. See Wikipedia:No original research. VeryVerily 06:27, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article in order to put an ongoing edit war to rest. To all the involved parties, please settle this dispute here on talk. 172 08:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How the hell can we settle anything? I'm the only one who provided any data. No one else even discussed the issues. Shorne 09:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can see that from this page. You can add that to a case against the users revering your edits at random on arbitration. 172 09:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I sure as hell hope that this will go to arbitration soon—and that something will be done. It seems to take an eternity for the arbitrators just to decide whether or not to accept a case. Shorne 09:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restore

Since the person who reverted the numerous changes made by Ruy Lopez and me has not defended his action here, I recommend that the article be restored and unprotected. Shorne 20:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Though I would normally agree, I think that it would be best to wait until "the person" has gone through arbitration before lifting protection. Any attempts to make changes beforehand would surely be fruitless, as you have previously experienced. GuloGuloGulo 04:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. bombing campaigns on Cambodia

I believe there is a "serious movement" that claims that many deaths were caused by U.S. bombing of Cambodia (so-called "secret bombings".) A simple Google search of "'Secret Bombings' Cambodia" proves this. The online Encarta encyclopedia makes a passing mention of it [10]. This article [11] states that "The bombings were reported for the first time on May 9, 1969, in the New York Times." The Yale Cambodian Genocide Project states "Cambodia was also slowly dragged into darkness when the Nixon administration conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the early 1970s" [12]. There is an extensive UC Berkley Thesis with good information that states "In the late 1960s to the early 1970s, while the United States was still in Vietnam, American B-52s began massive "secret" bombings to eliminate North Vietnamese sanctuaries in Cambodia. In The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, Craig Etcheson writes,

"The fact is that the United States dropped three times the quantity of explosives on Cambodia between 1970 and 1973 that it had dropped on Japan for the duration of World War II. Between 1969 and 1973, 539,129 tons of high explosives rained down on Cambodia; that is more than one billion pounds. This is equivalent to some 15,400 pounds of explosives for every square mile of Cambodian territory. Considering that probably less than 25 percent of the total area of Cambodia was bombed at one time or another, the actual explosive force per area would be at least four times this level."

At the very least, I think this proves that the other editors were not doing original research and that this is a "serious movement."

much more

From an International Committee of the Red Cross report: "While Phnom Penh fought the increasingly strong Khmer Rouge, the United States — as part of its strategy in the Vietnam war — dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia, destroying much of the country and driving half the population into the cities as displaced persons. [13]"

The following was found on a website by The International Campaign against Impunity (ICAI), which is "is committed to support victims of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide and torture in their fight against impunity." The document was not authored by the ICAI, but is "Reprinted with permission of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review. Originally published as Nicole Barrett, Holding Individual Leaders Responsible for Violations of Customary International Law: The U.S. Bombardment of Cambodia and Laos. The document has extensive citations and is well-documented. I highly recommend that you check it out: [14] Please excuse the excessive quoting.

"While there were several incidents of U.S. attacks in Cambodia prior to 1969, the bombing operations were formalized in 1969. In a fourteen month period, March 1969 to May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 B-52 raids against suspected Communist bases inside the Cambodian border. Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor to U.S. President Richard Nixon, asserted before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1973 that areas bombed were “unpopulated.” However, a memorandum written for the Secretary of Defense and sent to the White House by the Joint Chiefs of Staff indicates that “Breakfast” (Base Area 35) was home to approximately 1,640 Cambodian civilians, “Lunch” (Base Area 609) was populated by 198 Cambodian civilians, “Snack” (Base Area 351) had approximately 383 civilians, “Dinner” (Base Area 352) was home to approximately 770 civilians, and “Dessert” (Base Area 350) was inhabited by approximately 120 Cambodian peasants. The Joint Chiefs of Staff knew that the raids could not occur without endangering these Cambodians (“some Cambodian casualties would be sustained in the operation”) and acknowledged that “the surprise effect of attacks could tend to increase casualties.

"The Finnish Kampuchea Inquiry Commission estimates that, out of a total population of over seven million, six hundred thousand Cambodians died and over two million civilians became refugees as a result of the United States’ indiscriminate carpet bombing of towns, villages, jungle, and countryside from 1969 through April 1973. These estimates are modest compared to other sources... Historian Ben Kiernan interviewed a number of Cambodian refugees about the U.S. bombing. A peasant named Thuon Cheng remembered the bombing of his village, Banteay Chrey in northern Kampang Cham Province, where no communist troops had ever been stationed: 'In 1973 the Vietnamese stopped coming; in the same year, the village had to endure three months of intense bombardment by American B-52 planes. Bombs fell on Banteay Chrey three to six times per day, killing over one thousand people, or nearly a third of the village population, in three months.'

"Hong Var, resident of Sla in Takeo Province, one of the more heavily bombed areas, testified: 'The peasants frequently told in detail about their horrifying experiences . . . when Sla was a target of U.S. and Lon Nol bombers. They told how they had to dig trenches, and be prepared at any time to run from the fields, put out cooking fires, and so on.

"Over one hundred protests were filed by Cambodia with the United Nations from July 30, 1968 to March 9, 1970, the 27-month period preceding the March 18, 1970 overthrow of Prince Sihanouk’s government... These communications complained of acts of aggression including attacks on villages, peasants working in their fields, and fishermen in Cambodian territorial waters.38 Large numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as widespread destruction of livestock, crops, houses, and other property, resulted from these bombing attacks.

"United States Air Force maps of the targets for these attacks show that these bombs fell on densely populated, fertile areas. The U.S. Chief of Targets sitting in Thailand described the Cambodian bombing targets as “almost suburban in character with close-spaced villages throughout.” The U.S. bombing maps have been described as “hallucinatory” as the bombs were targeted to fall on the most densely inhabited areas of the country. Witnesses in Cambodia during this period report that the U.S. bombing had destroyed the fabric of Cambodian society."

GuloGuloGulo 20:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Gulo³, for the extra citation. I hope it won't be dismissed as "biased" or of low "quality". Shorne 22:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US bombing forced around 30% of the population to go to Phnom Penh and killed maade around 300 000 victims no more than 70 000 were Vietnamese. That was of course a disaster for Cambodia. However this doesn't exonerate the Khmer Rouge from their responsabilty the Khmer Rouge used at least 20% of the population for repression this is a strange way to fight against famine. Ericd 21:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No one has talked about exonerating the Khmer Rouge. We are being forced to shove facts in the faces of certain people here who deny the US's bombardment of Cambodia, which is by now very well known.

By the way, I don't know what you mean by "the Khmer Rouge used at least 20% of the population for repression". Shorne 22:00, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, the changes you are trying to make to the article have nothing to do with American involvement. Instead, you are attempting to delete material about the activities of the Khmer Rouge in a manner consist with an attempt at a white-wash. You're deleting paragraphs worth of material about the activities of the Khmer Rouge (not the Americans), and replacing it with nothing. Please end the bait and switch. Stargoat

I'm glad someone else noticed this. VeryVerily 23:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look below to see the actual disputes. 24.59.43.4 00:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's no need to lie, Stargoat, when your statements and mine are listed above for everyone to see. I'm not attempting to whitewash anything. You, however, have indeed questioned the US's involvement. So have others. Shorne 00:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the estimate of Marek Sliwinski that 20% of the Cambodian was employed by the administration... This is politically correct way to say political control of the population when you know they were no more school or hospitals working in the country. It's an enormous figure. Ericd 22:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this estimate? I'd like to know how it was computed. Shorne 00:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marek Sliwinski made a study on a sample of 1,300 Cambodian families (this represent around 13,000 persons). Ericd 01:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please send a reference. I'd like to look this study up. In particular, I'm curious to know how he obtained a representative sample. (If he extrapolated from a sample of emigrants, for example, the figure is probably exaggerated.) Shorne 04:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marek Sliwinski: "Le génocide khmer Rouge. Une analyse démographique." Éditions l'Harmattan, 1995, 174 pages, ISBN 2-7384-3525-4. summary (French)--84.188.180.40 14:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputes

The differences can be seen in more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=6502410&oldid=6502372

Shorne, the differences are not between VeryVerily and you. It's between you, and the article that was here before your unilaterial deletions. You would do well to remember that.

Furthermore, you are attempting to force the issue of why things should remain in the article, rather than why the article should be changed. This is intellectually dishonest behavior. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

KR Victim Photos

Include

• The photo is of the victims of the Khmer Rouge. To remove it is to whitewash the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. Furthermore, it is also indicative of a racist nature of the people attempting to remove it. The first image of the holocaust article is a picture of jews lined up. Removing this picture says that the Cambodian dead in the Khmer Rouge's killing fields are not worth as much as the Jewish dead in Nazi Germany. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is an article about the political party that formed in Cambodia; while the atrocities committed by it absolutely should be covered, it is not the main topic. For example, the Holocaust article does indeed have a photo of its victims, but the article on Nazi Germany does not. There is much to be said about Nazi Germany besides that it instituted genocidal programs; likewise with the KR. GuloGuloGulo 23:23, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Remove

• It is my opinion that using another image not so manipulative of one's emotions would be more in the spirit of NPOV. GuloGuloGulo 06:08, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
• The image is indeed out of place. Without denying that a lot of people were killed, I have no way to know who the people depicted are and why they were killed (if they were), and I certainly don't think this is an appropriate image for a political party. Shorne 07:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• How many people have been executed under the Bush brothers in Texas and Florida (and now federal prisoners under pResident Bush?) Can you imagine if the top of the GOP page here was a picture of all of the people they have executed? This page is probably the best example of Wikipedia POV-pushers. No facts, no NPOV, just mud slinging and nonsense. Ruy Lopez 22:04, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge's rule is generally remembered for its violent rule in which at least one million people were killed.

Include

This one is a slam dunk. The Khmer Rouge's rule is generally remembered for its violent rule in which at least one million people were killed. To say anything else is a lie. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"To say anything else is a lie," again, serves to completely halt discussion. GuloGuloGulo 20:21, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Remove

• I'm more for a rewording than I am for removal. There needs to be clarification of deaths caused directly (executions, overwork, etc.) and indirectly (starvation, etc.) by the KR. GuloGuloGulo 06:14, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

"To this was added resentment... ever envisaged by a party in power."

Include

• I can't tell what the heck it is you're talking about until you get down to "Stalin Maoism used as a model". But basically, the changes, the deletions, Shorne is attempting remove basic information about the history of the Khmer Rouge, without replacing it with anything. Shorne has provided no documenation for the deletions here. We cannot just delete material, and replace it with nothing. It must stay. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stalin/Maoism used as a model

• [15]. Throwing this in just as an aside to refute the claims about the Khmer Rouge as a "Maoist" organisation. Sihanouk and some representatives of the Khmer Rouge visited "Zhou Enlai, who was gravely ill", in 1975. (Zhou died the following year.) "Zhou warned them not to attempt to achieve communism suddenly by one 'great leap forward'.… Khieu Samphan and Khieu Thirith 'just smiled an incredulous and superior smile.'" Later Khieu Samphan "boasted to Sihanouk that 'we will be the first nation to create a completely communist society without wasting time on intermediate steps'". Anyone who has ever read a page of Marx knows that this is non-Marxist, therefore non-Leninist, non-Stalinist, and non-Maoist. Marxism postulates a long period of socialist development that, far in the future, will lead to communism. The Khmer Rouge believed that that was unnecessary and tried to implement the workers' paradise at one stroke. Mao also never supported the Khmer Rouge, but "the post–Mao Zedong leadership recognized the value of having a well-armed Cambodian thorn in the side of Vietnam" and, in 1978, "sent substantial military aid, which included armor, artillery, and antitank guns" [16].

Marxism is not the same thing as Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism. While we can be sure that the Khmer Rouge did not follow Marxism, that he didn't adapt a variant of Maoism "focused on the peasantry as a revolutionary force which, he said, could be mobilised by a Communist Party with "correct" ideas and leadership" [17], is debatable and worthy of inclusion. GuloGuloGulo 01:04, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge did not even call itself communist until it had come to power—and after Mao had died. Of the various governing parties widely called communist in the West, it was without a doubt the most bizarre. As to your comment, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism are all built on top of Marxism. It is impossible to be a Maoist but a non-Marxist.

"Built on top Marxism," but also changing many mainstays of Marxism. So, as a weird example: if Marxism is a grilled cheese sandwich, Maoism is not just the addition of ham, it's a whole different sandwich... A PBJ maybe. There is still bread on top and bottom, but they sure do taste different. So, carrying on this insane analogy, "It is impossible to be a PBJ but a non-grilled cheese sandwich" becomes invalid. You probably have to be heavily under the influence of psychotropic drugs to understand this, but I wasn't sure how else to clarify my objection. GuloGuloGulo 08:49, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really buy this. Which mainstays of Marxism does Maoism change? It seems to me that all of Marxism is contained within Maoism. Shorne 16:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Unlike the earlier forms of Marxism-Leninism in which the urban proletariat was seen as the main source of revolution, and the countryside was largely ignored, Maoism focused on the peasantry as a revolutionary force... unlike other forms of Marxism-Leninism in which large-scale industrial development was seen as a positive force, Maoism made all-round rural development the priority... Unlike most other political ideologies, including other socialist and Marxist ones, Maoism contains an integral military doctrine and explicitly connects its political ideology with military strategy... A key concept that distinguishes Maoism from other left-wing ideologies is the belief that the class struggle continues throughout the entire socialist period" (emphasises mine) [18]. And, as you stated, "Khieu Samphan "boasted... that 'we will be the first nation to create a completely communist society without wasting time on intermediate steps.'" This is decidedly different from Marxism, which predicts incremental societal change, but is similar to the Maoist concept of "Great Leap Forward," that Zhou Enlai warned against. GuloGuloGulo 18:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

You've succeeded in showing that Maoism differs from other Marxist trends. Congratulations, but that was never in dispute. Shorne 19:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right, what is in dispute is your argument that "we will be the first nation to create a completely communist society without wasting time on intermediate steps" is a non-Marxist ideology, and therefore non-Maoist. As I stated, this idea of Great Leap Forward originated with Maoism. As you agreed, even though you deleted almost any mention of it with your edits, it's influence is worthy of exploration. So, to get to what matters: judging by your edits, you agree that "The ideology of the Khmer Rouge combined a revised form of Maoism with the anti-colonialist ideas of the European left" but disagree with "The ideology of the Khmer Rouge was [sic] been described as using Stalinist means for Maoist ends" and the following dissertation. I think that here the influence of Stalinism and Maoism is oversimplified and not well explained, but is in need of revision instead of deletion. What do you think about creating a separate section that specifically deals with how the Khmer Rouge is related to and was influenced by other political thought? GuloGuloGulo 21:24, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Great Leap Forward was not a plan to leap straight to communist society; it was aimed at accelerating the pace of industrialisation. "Stalinist means for Maoist ends" is just a sound bite; since Maoism upholds Stalinism, it doesn't even mean anything. I agree with you that that is oversimplified and low on content. I also agree loosely with the statement about the Khmer Rouge's ideology; I just don't think that it says much. Better would be something like "The Khmer Rouge's ideology was an eclectic mix of military elements of Maoism and anticolonialist elements of other left-wing ideologies". Even that, however, isn't adequate.

This article should be about information, not about one-line zingers. I fully agree that a section on the politics of the Khmer Rouge would be a valuable addition. That's a subject that I don't know much about myself. (Sometimes I think that the Khmer Rouge didn't really have much of an ideology.) Unfortunately, we've been so deeply caught up in arguments over basic factual questions (the population of Cambodia, the US invasion, US support of the Khmer Rouge) that productive research of this sort has not even been on the agenda. I don't think it will be, either, until (O glorious day!) some sort of consensus on the surface-level stuff has been achieved. Shorne 23:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge activites ("Year Zero")

To remove any of this would constitute a whitewash. It would be morally identical to being a holocaust denier. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This comment is completely useless. It serves only to stunt discussion by suggesting that anyone who tries to make revisions is some kind of Neo-Nazi. GuloGuloGulo 19:55, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting the material and not replacing it would be morally equivilant. Stargoat 22:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Death toll estimates

• ~1.6 million. I got this from a site that takes varying estimates (0.7 - 3 million) from varying sources and concludes that "both the median and mean of all these estimates is 1.6M" [19] - GuloGuloGulo 06:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Taking the median or the mean of unrelated estimates computed according to different methodologies is not valid. Especially when it comes to something such as deaths, we need to be far more careful than that. See the following section. Shorne 07:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain why this method is invalid? I think the only way to reconcile varying estimates and methodologies is by statistical evaluation. It is especially valid when the median and mean are so close, or, in this case, the same. Please provide sources for alternative estimates so we might reach a consensus. GuloGuloGulo 20:15, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Take an extreme example. Say you have one source that counts only people personally killed by Pol Pot himself between 1975 and 1979. Another source takes into account every single death, including those from natural causes, from 1970 to 1980 and for good measure throws in babies that "would have been born" if there hadn't been a hellish war, a big famine, and other calamities. The first source would be only a handful of people, maybe none. The second source would be over two million. So you take the average and conclude one million deaths. Is that fair? Of course not.

If the estimates differ by a factor of four, it is not appropriate just to take their average. Some effort to vet them for quality and utility is needed.

In any case, I'm not going to raise a hellish fight over this. I mentioned it just to illustrate the need to be careful when evaluating data. Sad but true, the sorts of people who go around citing the wildest claims ("3 million" Cambodians "killed" in four years, "30 million" Chinese people "killed" in the Great Leap Forward) seldom bother to examine the data, even to find out what is being claimed.

I'll supply sources as soon as the other side starts supplying some. I haven't seem them do a damn thing yet other than assert without a whit of evidence that their version of history is universally accepted. Shorne 20:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While that is a valid point, I think these type of things need to evaluated on a case by case basis. In this case, my source cites 25 estimates from various reputable sources, ranging from Noam Chomsky to the NYT. The estimates vary, but not wildly. Furthermore, his method is completely transparent. He also uses median to account for skewed distributions. While I agree that simply taking the average of a handful of estimates is not valid, in this case, the result is cogent.

Most sources (see links above) give numbers of at least 1 million. Most higher. It should stay as is without proof saying otherwise. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trials of KR leaders

This has been recently changed. Some of the officials in Cambodia have recently been brought before courts. A news search in Google would give more information. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky Book as External Link

• The link is improper. We should give a proper bibliographic reference to the book, complete with ISBN, in a section called "References and further reading". I shall add some other references, too. Shorne 00:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone cares about this, it should be changed. Stargoat 13:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, are you ready to talk

Shorne, are you ready to talk about the unilateral deletions you are making? You've been awfully quiet about them recently, except to enter a revert war when the article becomes unlocked. Stargoat 18:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ready to talk? I'm the only one who has done any talking. The "unilateral" actions represent nothing more than the writing of material factually supported and uncontested on this talk page. Shorne 19:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, you've not communicated on here for several days. Also, you've not yet responded to my comments to your changes above.

More importantly Shorne, you are not writing, you are deleting. You have not displayed good faith when negoiating here. You seek to change the topic of conversation to avoid the real issue: your deletion and non-replacement of material. You are not adding value to this article; you are simply removing material which has been accepted by the community as true. Please try and work with the community to come up with a solution. Your unilateral and POV changes do not help anyone. Stargoat 20:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do you lie when the edit history shows the truth? Ruy Lopez and I made a huge number of changes. VeryVerily unilaterally reverted them all. You think I should take that nonsense lying down?

If there is anything to discuss, discuss it. You first raised the issue of sources. When I provided some (you didn't provide any), you had nothing to say. Spell out your complaint with the substance of what Ruy Lopez and I have written, not with our personalities, or I will assume that you have no dispute. Shorne 20:24, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, you've moved from rational discussion to irrational accusations. I do not care about personality. I've made that quite clear several times.

Concerning sources, I have provided several sources concerning number of dead. You've chosen to ignore them. I've addressed all your changes above, where you list them out. You've chosen to ignore my comments. You've displayed bad faith in these discussions. If you persist, we will reach an impasse. I do not wish for that to occur, so I ask again, are you ready to begin discussions in earnest? Stargoat 20:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, it is I who have been demanding all along that the issues be worked out in discussion. You and the others are the ones displaying bad faith. Again, you still have not raised a substantive dispute about the changes.

Those numbers, as I recall, are still in the article. I don't mind leaving them there in the context of uncertainty about the real figures (which should be clear anyway, since the figures themselves vary by a large multiple). I do mind citing one of them (typically the highest available) as the undisputed truth.

Now, do you or do you not have any issue of substance to discuss? If you do, please spit it out. Shorne 21:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, you seem incouragable. You continue to swear, and not work towards an equitable solution. Instead of working for a commonly accepted solution, you grow angry. Look, if you want to work this out, you're going to need to apologize to the community. Then, I would suggest that you let Ruy and I try to sort this out. Neither you, nor VV seems willing to give any ground. VV, will you accept this? Stargoat 00:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is you who should apologise—for being absolutely exasperating. You disregard everything I say and raise all kinds of non-issues about swearing and the like. I don't know how I can communicate any more plainly without getting out a box of crayons. I'll just note, for the record, that you STILL haven't disputed ANYTHING that Ruy Lopez and I have written in this article. It's asinine to talk about giving ground when you haven't even raised a dispute. Shorne 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The following text is an extract of the last valid version (i.e., mine, before VeryVerily's unilateral reversion) of the article. Can you open your eyes and see that no one has removed your beloved figures? Christ. Shorne 21:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There has been a debate over, during the period the Khmer Rouge was in power, the number of people who were executed, who died of malnutrition, or who died of natural causes, in Cambodia. 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 the total death toll as 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively. R. J. Rummel gives a figure of 2 million.

I believe this is one of those pages where a resolution will never come about until the VeryVerily arbitration committee decides to enforce the rules regarding VeryVerily's abuse of the three revert rule. Also his accusations that I'm trying to bury the truth or whatever on this page are of course baseless. I have no problems with this sentence: "Three sources, United States Department of State, Amnesty International and the Yale Cambodian Genocide Project, give estimates of the total death toll as 1.2 million, 1.4 million and 1.7 million respectively." This is a fact - the YCGP did say the death toll was 1.7 million. You can argue who is right, the US State Department or the YCGP, but that they said it is a fact so it stays in the article.

What is unacceptable are things like "When the Khmer Rouge came to power they were determined immediately to create a classless society by force. They carried out a radical program of emptying the urban areas, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking and currency, outlawing religion, ending private property, and driving the population at gunpoint into 'collective farms' which were little better than labour camps." This does not belong in an encyclopedia. I also dispute the facts - it says the KR "emptied the urban areas". True, they sent farmers who had fled to the cities due to battles in the countryside back to their farms, but did they *empty* urban areas? Empty means nothing, zero. This is ridiculous, completely ridiculous, POV and with no basis in reality. Sending farmers back to their farms becomes cities empty of people. Ludicrous. Ruy Lopez 22:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are many sources that completely back this claim. Many are linked to from the article itself. I would propose that we keep the text that is in the article, and add a caveat. The commonly accepted answer is that the Khmer Rouge committed the atrocities as listed above. But, there are other people who believe differently. I think this will probably be the only possible solution, given the circumstances and the, ah, strong personalities involved. What do you think, Ruy? Stargoat 00:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ruy, I've not heard back from you. VV has said he is willing to discuss appending the article. Would you be interested in discussing that? Stargoat 23:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See above for proof that you're talking about a non-issue. Shorne 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If, and I say if, there really is a credible body of scholarly material that questions this analysis (but which as we all know is overwhelmingly rejected), then a section on "dissenting views" should be tagged on. But it should not result in qualifiers on the rest of the article, anymore than Holocaust should be filled with "supposed gas chambers" and "the so-called genocide". VeryVerily 00:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't be coy. I provided several pages of citations that no one disputed. NO ONE else here provided any citations except half a dozen inconsistent ones about death tolls. (I get the idea that certain people here care only about death tolls—which might explain their infatuation with embracing the most outlandish ones.) Shorne 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A bunch of the "citations" you're so proud of are nakedly partisan websites, hardly worth the contempt. If that is what passes for scholarship around here, then WP is indeed a joke. All this stuff has real books on it written by actual knowledgeable professionals, but I don't see a single one of them cited. Stan 06:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A book prepared by the US government is "nakedly partisan"? Try reading the sources before dismissing them. Shorne 07:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's why I didn't say "all" of the citations, duh. But US govt ones will have their own biases, depending on when and by who they were written. I've had to clear out dozens of "defeating the godless Communists" rah-rahs from USN content for instance. Scholarly works are better for interpretation of raw data and presentation of multiple viewpoints, which is why serious people rely on those rather than the random junk on the net. I passed by the Cambodia section once in my local university library, there were at least three shelves full. I would expect to see at least a dozen of them cited for a tough subject like this, not zero. Stan 07:29, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've cited facts. You and the others have not. You can damn well go and dig up some books to prove your lies, if you can. Shorne 15:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Careful about the accusations you're slinging around - I've not made any assertions for or against the content, and so therefore have no "lies" to "prove". A sure sign of a POV pusher is the constant talk about "facts" and "proof", when anybody educated past the college freshman level knows that many claims simply cannot be established with certainty. A true scholar will always say "this is what the current evidence supports". Shorne is very much like W. in fact - we have yet to hear either of them admit that they might be wrong about anything. Stan 16:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Restore this article

It's time to restore this article to my most recent version. No one has raised a single question about the changes by me and others that were irresponsibly and unilaterally reverted. Furthermore, those changes are well supported by citations. Shorne 00:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding? All we have been doing is questioning your recent additions. TDC 05:00, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Revert war between Gazpacho, Shorne, Ruy Lopez

As long as you're just deleting portions of history without any proposal for an alternate description, there's not much to discuss. Gazpacho 09:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Negotiating with someone who wants to erase half the article because they don't like what it says is pointless. VeryVerily 10:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. "generally remembered for...": factually accurate and significant enough for intro.
2. "When they came to power...": repetitive of the next section.
3. paragraph comparing ideologies: inherently subjective. Discuss their ideology in its own terms.
4. "emptying the urban areas": factually disputed, alternate wording proposed.
5. proportion of population that died: should be in the paragraph on statistics
6. new paragraph on western reaction: pursuant to POV dispute resolution procedures.
7. "but this figure has little credibility": maybe, but why say so about this figure and not the others?
8. "Although most researchers...": Accurate statement of researcher views.

Gazpacho 13:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Half of this talk page is a discussion—actually a monologue, for I'm almost the only one who has said anything or provided any sources. Please read the talk page before making any more reversions or changes. Shorne 13:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, you are a liar. I've provided documentation above. There is documentation on the page itself. I've also responded to your half-hearted attempts to justify your deletions. You could not respond to them.

We've spoken about your deletions to the article. You do not care to work with anyone on this article. Shorne only seeks to gut information from this article. He is not working to reach a compromise on his deletions. Stargoat 21:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everyone who cares to read this talk page can see through your lies. You haven't addressed my points or my references; nor have you raised a question about them despite many requests from me. It is you who are insisting on your POV. I've bent over backwards to achieve a compromise. You and your lot haven't lifted a finger to do so. Shorne 03:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've read the comments, and here are my reactions:

• Shorne's four questions of 1 Oct. do not point away from the common understanding of what happened in Cambodia.
• Firsthand accounts of suffering (including outright murder) caused directly by the KR and its radical programs abound and can be read both online and off.
• It was a common US tactic during the Cold War to transport military supplies through refugee relief operations (see Civil Air Transport)
• There exists (IMO) credible evidence (e.g. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19063]) that the US moved military supplies to KR forces after the Vietnamese invasion and after the organized executions, socialist restructuring, and agrarianization.

So, Shorne, I think there is good reason to have material in the article about US policy toward the KR after the Vietnamese invasion. But I am missing how that relates to the omission of any description of what the KR did (not what happened, what it did) when it was in power. Gazpacho 09:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't entirely follow you.

First-hand accounts were never an issue because no one ever included any. They probably do not belong in an encyclopædia, precisely because a first-hand account can be found for almost any position.

I don't see the relevance of your comment about "refugee relief operations".

As for US support of the Khmer Rouge, we seem to be in agreement. I have said that the US gave military, financial, and other support from 1979 onward—in other words, from the time of the invasion.

I'm not sure what you mean about omitting any description of what the Khmer Rouge did. I haven't omitted anything. Please check the edit history and tell me what I have omitted. On the contrary, the people doing the omitting here seek to cover up the US's massive bombardment of Cambodia and various other significant facts that readers have a right to know. Shorne 20:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is what you've omitted:

When the Khmer Rouge came to power they were determined immediately to create a classless society by force. They carried out a radical program that included closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking and currency, outlawing religion, ending private property, and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was common. The Khmer Rouge justified such actions by claiming that the country was on the verge of mass starvation as a result of American bombing campaigns, and that this required evacuating the cities to the countryside so that people could grow their own food. 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.

Events under the Khmer Rouge shocked journalists and commentators in Western countries. The party was accused of genocide and autogenocide, the latter term being created specifically to describe Cambodia.

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.

Former Khmer Rouge leaders Khieu Samphan and Pol Pot 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. Although most researchers attribute the deaths to the party's revolutionary program, a vocal minority claim that US intervention figured heavily in the atrocities.

The two photos of Khmer Rouge's victims.

Perhaps you'd like to explain these deletions one by one. Furthermore, I failed to find evidence of "seek[ing] to cover up the US's massive bombardment of Cambodia." Nowhere, that I could find, was this information added then deleted. On the other hand, your edits seem to be doing lots of deleting; also some rewording, but very little actual contributing. GuloGuloGulo 20:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to check the facts before making accusations. It was not I who made most of those deletions. Shorne 18:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where else to check the facts other than in the article's history. If you did not make these deletions, how do you explain these: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]?

You plainly did make these changes; unless someone is using your user name for edits that you don't approve of, which seems unlikely to the point of being ludicrous. GuloGuloGulo 23:41, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Many of those deletions were made by Ruy Lopez. I merely restored them, along with other changes that VeryVerily repeatedly rolled back without discussing them. Shorne 03:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restoring deletions is the same thing as deleting. These logic games willfully avoid the dispute and are useless. GuloGuloGulo 22:20, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not playing games. It is true that I restored material that VeryVerily deleted en masse. Why shouldn't I? Should he be allowed to get his way by dint of an unexplained deletion? Shorne 00:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not true. VV restored material that you deleted en masse. It's right in the article history. Why the disinformation? GuloGuloGulo 07:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

The relevance of the comment about relief operations is that the US is alleged to have supported the KR through such means. First hand accounts are surely an issue for determining whether a version of events is credible.Gazpacho 17:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "relief operations" had a plainly political motivation. Starving Cambodians don't eat military matériel.

First-hand accounts do not belong here. They are little better than gossip. You can always find people to give first-hand accounts that corroborate any given POV. Any first-hand accounts given here would likely be from wealthy English-speaking émigrés rather than from peasants interviewed in Khmer in remote Cambodian villages. In any case, none have been provided, so this is hardly relevant. Shorne 18:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Summary?

I came here via RfC. Can someone summarize the dispute? Maurreen 05:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is none. A few people here keep reverting factual and well-documented changes by me and others, but they have failed time and time again to raise a dispute here on the talk page, despite numerous requests from me to do so. I don't want to be a burden, but I'm afraid the best way to understand this matter is to read through the discussion on this talk page from the past month or so. Shorne 05:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne wants to delete half the article, that half that says anything unflattering about the Khmer Rouge and their murderous rule, and replace it with a hollowed out version where their well-documented atrocities are treated as mere rumor. He has been citing half-baked "sources", which have been rebutted by several users now and in the past (when sockpuppet armies trolled this article), to justify deleting what is clearly a historical consensus about this time period. VeryVerily 06:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyone with two eyes can see through this tissue of lies by merely reading the discussion here. Shorne 07:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your dispute has apparently moved to Requests for Arbitration, is that right? If so, should I remove it from the page for Request for Comment? Maurreen 06:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about any request for comment on this page. VeryVerily is currently the subject of four requests for arbitration because of his brazen insistence on having every article revolve around what VeryVerily happens to believe. Shorne 07:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At this point, I'm at a loss for how to engage Shorne in discussion (and with events picking up in real life, I probably won't have time anyway). His skepticism of witness accounts seems to deny the very possibility of historical research. Sadly, given the tendencies of various parties, I don't see the article being normalized in the near future. Gazpacho 11:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where are the photos?

Why aren't there photos of the Khmer Rouge here? I'm sure there's a non-copyrighted one out there that we can find to use in this page. There is a picture of a skull and some mugshots of prisoners. Not trying to sound coldhearted, but is this an article about victims of the Khmer Rouge or the Khmer Rouge themselves? Dara 05:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC -8)

It's rather on topic to cover the KR's victims on the KR article (a separate Victims of the Khmer Rouge article would be overkill). I'm not sure what you mean by a photo of the KR; a picture of one of their party meetings? VeryVerily 02:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While the KR is best known for their atrocious human rights violations, I think another picture more representative of the party is a grand idea. Though the KR did kill a bunch of people, they did much else otherwise. A separate article on "Year Zero" or something of the like, I think would be more comprehensive, not overkill. Note that on the Nazi Germany article (which did many things but is best known for the Holocaust) has a separate article for that genocide, and does not show photos of Nazi Germany's victims.

Dara, this is something that has been hotly debated on this article. Because of various editing disagreements, the article is, and likely will forever-be, protected from editing. Good luck trying to reason with people here, most will have nothing to do with it. GuloGuloGulo 05:30, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)