Talk:Cambodian People's Party/Archive 1

Untitled
I'm very unclear about this. The article says the Cambodian People's Party came to power in 1979. Does this mean it's a different party from Pol Pot's party? If so which political party did Pol Pot represent? He is mentioned in this article as if he were a member of CPP. And if Pol Pot belonged to a different party, what was CPP's status (presumably outlawed) during the Khmer Rouge era? There is nothing here about the history of CPP during the period of KR rule, or the relationship between CPP and KR (if there is one). -86.133.243.52 13:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be an explanation of the split between Pol Pot and the KPRK. General Idea 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article
Some key figures in the Pen Sovan leadership were former collaborators with Pol Pot, but this information, and the communist ideological convictions of the new leadership were not publicized because the leadership feared backlash from people who had been brutalized by the Pol Pot regime.

This sentence makes little sense to me. Of course all or most of the KPRP (except for those who had spent the entire period in Vietnam) had been "collaborators" with Pol Pot, since they had been a faction within the Cambodian communist party (the Khmer rouge) and Pol Pot had been its leader. "Collaborator" is commonly used as a pejorative term associated with "working with an outside entity against his own society or faction", while they had been working within their own entity (party).

More importantly, the claim that the communist ideological convictions of the new leadership were concealed from the people is just as dubious - since communist Vietnam had installed the new regime, it was obvious that it would be a communist regime, even if the population really somehow didn't recognize any of the KPRP functionaries as communist activists from earlier years (which I doubt). The text seems to cite Pen Sovan's report in support of this, but the cited statement only shows that he distanced himself from Pol Pot, and that is obviously no proof that he was concealing the party's being communist.

Now, these sentences and most of the remaining text in the article were pasted directly from the Library of Congress Country Studies website. Normally, this should be a reliable source, but this case is special. A US government source is more than likely to be biased not only against communists in general, but also against the KPRP regime in particular, because the US government was actively trying to topple that regime throughout the 1980s, in a rather controversial quasi-alliance with China and the Khmer Rouge (see the Khmer Rouge article). It was quite interested in discrediting the KPRP and, at least, in equating the KPRP communist regime with Pol Pot's communist regime. That's why I think that an additional citation for the disputed claims is needed. Since no Wikipedian is the author of this text, I don't expect a swift reaction to a tag, so I'm moving the sentence here for the time being.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Marxist Leninist ( Stalinist )
This political party is not communist. The Cambodian People's Party is no longer Marxist Leninist in the Stalinist tradition. I have serious doubts about its left-wing nature, since it accepts the Cambodian monarchy and capitalism. So this party cannot be socialist, they don't speak about socialism on their website. --UDSS (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, the party is no longer communist and doesn't seem to be following any kind of socialist ideology, especially considering their support for the monarchy. There should. at least, be a section dedicated the party's ideology, both past and present. Charles Essie (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ideology; not socialist, not anything
The party is not socialist, or more precise, the party those not adhere to "Reformist socialism" (whatever that means).... I've gone through the party's statute and principles and, in reality, the only thing I could get out of it was that the party was patriotic (whatever that means), and they claim to defend the liberal democratic system of multiple choice.. The party is authoritarian, and was socialist, but its not socialist any longer. --TIAYN (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Split
I think there should be a separate page for the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party. The current Cambodian People's Party bears little resemblance to it's predecessor. After all, we have separate pages for all the Eastern Bloc communist parties and their successors. Charles Essie (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As a parallel, the modern US Democrat party bears little resemblance to the party formed in 1828 (which also had a different name, "The Democracy", until 1844) and we don't have separate pages for its various iterations throughout its existence. It is the nature of political parties to either evolve or become irrelevant. There is a continuity of leadership, membership, organization, strategy, tactics, etc. that make it still the same party, albeit with an updated contemporary ideology and a different name to reflect its perceived beliefs.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party also had it's origins in the Democratic-Republican Party, we have a separate article for that. As we do with the Hungarian Communist Party/Hungarian Working People's Party/Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party/Hungarian Socialist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party/Bulgarian Socialist Party, the Party of Labour of Albania/Socialist Party of Albania, the League of Communists of Serbia/Socialist Party of Serbia, the Communist Party of Ukraine (Soviet Union)/Communist Party of Ukraine, ect. Charles Essie (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Those examples you gave are not the same. The Democratic-Republican Party was dissolved through a split (and it was not a formal merger of any kind) .. To make matters even more difficult, several members joined the Republican party. As for the case of the Hungarian Working People's Party, it was a merger of the Hungarian Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party, thus making it impossible to have one article for the parties.. The Socialist Party of Serbia was likewise established through a merger, with the League of Communists of Serbia being the biggest group. The Soviet Communist Party of Ukraine was abolished on 26 August 1991, while the current one was established two years later, on June 19, 1993. In similar vain to the Hungarian Working People's Party, the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party was dissolved and established itself immediately in a different guise, this time as the Hungarian Socialist Party (but at its founding congress a split occurred, and this led to the Hungarian Workers' Party). However, you're right on Bulgaria, the article on the communist period should be merged with the Bulgarian Socialist Party article and I would concur to a merger of the Hungarian Working People's Party and the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party since the same men held senior positions when it was dissolved and reestablished. --TIAYN (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations and original research concerns
The sections titled "Fourth Party Congress: change of strategy (1981)" and "Heng Samrin's leadership (1981–1991)" appear to have been copied and pasted from a GlobalSecurity.org article, which is not available under a free license. The section titled "Hun Sen's leadership (1991–present)" is also completely unsourced and reads like an editor's original analysis. I checked the article history and the latter issue seems to be largely the work of Cambodia cool, which made the edits to the article in 2019 and has not done anything else since. The copyrighted sections should be removed, and unless someone can provide the sources that Cambodia cool should have, the "Hun Sen's leadership (1991–present)" section should at least be commented out until the issue at hand (i.e. no sources cited) is remedied. Centre Left Right ✉ 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Requested copyvio-revdel. Copyvios Wiki tool returned a content match of ~95%. Centre Left Right  ✉ 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sokkun In
He should be remembered for being part of the Cambodian People Party. 2604:2D80:6A0A:D800:C0A6:3D48:20F7:B1E5 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Biased towards the CPP?
Sections within this promote the idea that Cambodia under the CPP is a democracy (which is untrue; please see the Democracy Index for more information) 97.109.3.160 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)