Talk:Cambodian genocide/Archive 2

Historical Background
Is Rise of the Khmer Rouge really supposed to be blank, with a link to the main article? It feels off, shouldn't there be a summary in there at least? Bludisaster (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section is not blank; it is merely divided into subsections.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic Chinese Cambodians were killed en-masse, too
This article has failed to stress especially in the introduction that this genocide had also resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Chinese Cambodians, and not just the natives. It's seems to have been re-written almost entirely relatively recently entirely to push the notion that the entire genocide was orchestrated almost exclusively by the Chinese and was supported by them, instead of Pol Pot and his party. It can be seen with the entirety of the second paragraph stating the regime was highly supported by China without providing further context. During this era, Chinese enterprise and cultural expression were literally completely banned and destroyed.

It makes it seem that the Cambodian genocide was only possible thanks to the act of the Chinese. It should also be noted that during the 1970s to 1980s, relations between China and the U.S. were relatively warm due to the Sino-Soviet split and Richard Nixon's visit to China. Like I get it, the hate for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) especially since 2019, and by extension, Sinophobia, is all the rage right now. But that doesn't mean one should rewrite history. It's blatantly downplaying and misrepresenting Cambodian history and the Chinese community of Cambodia. 111.118.92.69 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * China was the only supporter of the Khmer Rouge while they were in power. If you have specific changes that you wish to propose supported by RS then please put them forward, but a broad accusation of Sinophobia won't get you anywhere. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Cambodia was not only supported by China by no means... Pol revision (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "China was the only supporter of the Khmer Rouge while they were in power" – Wow. That is straight up historical revisionism right there. The U.S. literally supported the Khmer Rouge throughout its rule over Cambodia, culminating with its support for its admission to the U.N. as the legitimate government of Cambodia in opposition to Vietnam's invasion/liberation at the time. There's literally an archived The Washington Post article from 1980 about this. Also: Allegations of United States support for the Khmer Rouge, of course with the "Allegations" in the article for "good measure", as it's disputed by the U.S. government (of course it is). I guess that IP wasn't that wrong with their assessments of the article after all. I also think it's pretty telling that your response pretty much disregarded the plight of Chinese Cambodians at the time. 116.44.216.57 (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible small discrepancy with links
In the Historical Background section there are links to all of the pages, but one of the sections has text briefly explaining it, and since I am a very new moderator, I would like if someone with more experience could confirm whether it should be changed for consistency or not. It seems to be fine, but might be easier if we add explanations to the other topics listed for easier access. MrGlassess (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Quality of Citation 32 (Southerland)
This source is a 2006 article in Radio Free Asia. While I don't have any reason doubt the existence of the atrocities it mentions, RFA is a known propaganda arm of the United States government known for spreading misinformation in and about the region under discussion in this article, and is therefore not to be trusted any farther than you can throw one of their broadcast towers. Perhaps we can find a primary source to replace it on the issues we're using it for here? Southerland himself cites a book, First They Killed My Father, by one Loung Ung (with whom I'm unfamiliar, but I did come to this article to learn in the first place), to substantiate some of the claims he makes that we repeat here. That might be a good starting point, if it's credible. A quick google search shows that some people have already picked at a few details, albeit unimportant ones. Cypionate (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You may want to refer to this discussion about the reliability of RFA. I personally don't know much about this topic to give an informed opinion, but it's good to cross reference RFA with another source due to their bias in geopolitically-charged areas. PetraMagna (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Radio Free Asia is usually considered a reliable source, as can be seen at WP:RSP. As can be read on that page there is consensus that for the purposes of Wikipedia it is neither a peddler of misinformation nor a propaganda outlet. If you disagree with that assessment the proper place to voice complaints is WP:RSN. XeCyranium (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)