Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 6

Revert war
Ruy Lopez keeps vandalizing this article by replacing the words Khmer Rouge with variations of the acronyms GRUNK and CPNLAF. The resulting text is nearly unreadable. I understand that the whole Cambodian situation at that time was confused, and there may be may players of importance, but just spewing acronyms every where is not helpful. According to most sources, GRUNK and FUNK were essentially what we know as the Khmer Rouge.

Also, replacing 'The Khmer Rouge in power' with 'The royal government in power' is totally confusing to the reader. This article is about the Khmer Rouge. The title of that section should thus be 'The Khmer Rouge in power', and any relation between the Khmer Rouge and the royal goverment explained therein. Rangek 16:50, 2005 May 19 (UTC)


 * GRUNK and FUNK were headed by Sihanouk, the former king of Cambodia. You're saying "According to most sources, GRUNK and FUNK were essentially what we know as the Khmer Rouge."  So does that mean the Communist Party of Kampuchea was run by Sihanouk instead of Pol Pot as is stated?  What you're saying is ridiculous.  It would be like saying "The USSR liberated France from the Nazis.  Well - actually, the allies did, but the USSR and the allies are the same things, so it doesn't matter".


 * The Royal Government of National Union of Kampuchea (GRUNK) is who took over Cambodia in 1975 and began sending farmers back to the countryside. It was run by Sihanouk.  If you would prefer to say the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces or FUNK, I will not stop you.  But it was not the "Khmer Rouge". Ruy Lopez 21:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I kind get what Ruy Lopez is saying here. So GRUNK and FUNK were allied with the Khmer Rouge?  So Pol Pot and Sihanouk had the same relationship as let's say Roosevelt and Stalin?  Then, after the take over of Cambodia, Pol Pot (Khmer Rouge) and Sihanouk (GRUNK) had a failing out (like Roosevelt and Stalin).  Okay... So if GRUNK really took over in '75, how did the Khmer Rouge wind up in power?  That would be like the Western Allies recapturing France, but Stalin winding up in power there.  It doesn't follow.  This whole thing is very confusing.


 * BTW, I probably made a poor choice of words when I said "vandalized" above. My problem with Ruy's edits is that they make an understandable, if perhaps simplistic, reckoning of events and make it totally incomprehensible. Rangek 22:03, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

No, you were right, he is a vandal, in the sense that he is a crazed communist who is determined to impose his lies and distortions on this article (and others). The facts are that GRUNK and FUNK were fronts for the Khmer Rouge and had no real existence apart from the KR, as was shown when they took power. Sihanouk was their prisoner, politically and eventually literally. Ruy Lopez's edits should be reverted on sight without getting into his crazed arguments. Adam 00:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Pol Pot and Norodom Sihanouk were best of friends (I remember watching a news documentary in the 70's) about it and Sihanouk proceeded to praise Pot for "saving Cambodia. That's why I added a section about the fact Sihanouk was a supporter of their movement.--198 23:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate 198's anti-Communist sentiments, he/she needs to learn some history before plunging in and editing this article. Sihanouk was not a communist (as you said at Ruy Lopez's homepage), nor was he a supporter of the KR. They were after all originally formed to overthrow his government. He only allied himself with them after the 1970 coup, when Mao Zedong made it clear that this was the basis on which he would get Chinese support. He then became the figurehead leader of FUNK and the "head of state" of GRUNK. When the KR took power in 1975 he became head of state of Democratic Kampuchea, but he was deposed in 1976 and put under virtual house arrest, later being allowed to leave and go back to Beijing, where he has lived ever since. Several members of his family were killed by the KR and he probably hated them as much as any other Khmer, but political realities preventing him saying so. The real villain in all of this is Mao Zedong, who armed and inspired the KR and was the origin of their mad ideology, and who also forced Sihanouk to ally himself with them, thus giving them credibility with the Khmer peasantry. Adam 01:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Adam Carr says "When the KR took power in 1975 [Sihanouk] became head of state of Democratic Kampuchea, but he was deposed in 1976 and put under virtual house arrest, later being allowed to leave and go back to Beijing, where he has lived ever since." Where he has lived ever since? Perhaps you should try reading Wikipedia's own Norodom Sihanouk page, or perhaps Sihanouk's own web page? Sihanouk has been in Cambodia for the past 13 years. Thankfully, your misinformation and lack of knowledge in this instance is consigned to the talk pages, and not the article pages which you normally pollute. Ruy Lopez 06:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * He has officially resided in Cambodia, but he has spent almost all his time in Beijing, which has suited Hun Sen's government very nicely. Adam 06:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's utterly ridiculous that this article ignores anybody but the so-called Khmer Rouge. Sihanouk led GRUNK, was a prominent member of FUNK, and had similar connections to the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces. No one is denying the so-called Khmer Rouge were in a front with Sihanouk and others, but Adam Carr wants to rewrite history, put Sihanouk and others way, way, way in the background, and erase FUNK/GRUNK/CPNLAF and just call everything "Khmer Rouge". It would be like calling the Republican Party, the Democratic party, the US armed forces and the government of the United States of America all "the Republican party". Yet when I step in and differentiate, Carr steps in and redoes everything, because in his fevered mind, the Cambodian equivalent of the Republican Party, the Democratic party, the US armed forces and the government of the United States of America are all one thing. Ruy Lopez 22:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already dealt with this argument, see above. Adam 00:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone feels some part of this article is irrelevant (such as who Lon Nol fought against, or whatever), as fair as I'm concerned you can erase it. But I will not allow people to act as if GRUNK, FUNK and the CPNLAF never existed.

As I said to RickK, as just one example, Adam Carr changed the sentence "With American financial support, Lon Nol attempted to fight the Vietnamese Communists and the CPNLAF." He changed CPNLAF to "Khmer Rouge". This is analogous to a sentence saying something like "With some foreign support, Iraqi insurgents are attempting to fight the British army and the US's Democratic Party" because some of the soldiers fighting vote Democratic, some Democratic congressmen voted for the invasion, so thus, the Iraqi insurgency must be against the Democratic Party. The only unfortunate thing is one would have to know something about all of this to realize how ridiculous what Adam Carr is saying is. You don't even have to read something like Michael Vickery or Noam Chomsky (who are not gung-ho on the Cambodian communists anyway). Cambridge handbooks concur with me, although Adam Carr polemics probably don't.

I think all of this is just a sign of how admins like Adam Carr can get away with anything on Wikipedia. Ruy Lopez 06:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin. Adam 06:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez you have now reverted this article five or six times and if you do so again I will report you under the three-reverts rule (a rule I oppose but if I have to be bound by it so do you). Adam 04:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The three-revert rule does not say someone can not revert an article five or six times, it says "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours", something I have not done. So report away... Ruy Lopez 05:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should read the rules more closely. In that case I will revert you twice a day, for the rest of history if needs be. Plus I have more allies than you, so your attempts to restalinise this article must fail. Adam 05:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to side with Adam on all of this based on his arguements (even though he was uncomplementary to me here, but that's cool) and my own limited knowledge of the topic. Regardless of that I must insist that replacing 'The Khmer Rouge in power' with 'The royal government in power', and similar edits are totally confusing to the reader. This article is about the Khmer Rouge. The title of that section should thus be 'The Khmer Rouge in power', and any relation between the Khmer Rouge and the royal goverment explained therein. You might gain more (any) support if your edits were not so confounding, regardless of their factual basis or lack thereof. Rangek 02:00, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)


 * The problem is the Khmer Rouge were not in power in 1975. Thus, if you put "The Khmer Rouge in power" that might be less confusing, but it would not be correct.  It would be like having an article about the US Democratic party and saying in it there is a Democratic president in the US right now, because to say there have a Republican president would be confusing in an article on the Democratic party.


 * If you feel something is confusing and want to remove it, feel free to do so. Whenever I erase a sentence from this article, Adam Carr begins howling that I'm a communist covering up genocide.  Thus, I am stuck with simply trying to make sure anything mentioned in the article is correct.  You seem to be saying you prefer the article to present false information, as long as it's less confusing to the reader.  For my part, all I care about is the article is true, correct, factual and so forth.  If you want to change the grammar around feel free to do so.  But I will not less false information stand. Ruy Lopez 02:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Groups with weird acronyms
Hey Ruy, what's wrong with writing articles about GRUNK, et. al.? It might clarify things. If they are somehow interrelated with the Khmer Rouge, then appropriate refernces could be made both in the Khmer Rouge article and the new articles. A2Kafir 18:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With respect, A2Kafir is misunderstanding the problem with Ruy Lopez's edits. The problem is not that FUNK and GRUNK are obscure acronyms (that could be dealt with by explanation), but that they were bogus (largely non-existent in fact) organisations, created to keep Sihanouk happy and create a facade of respectibility for the Khmer Rouge for the benefit of gullible foreigners (like me at the time). The reality was that the communist Khmer Rouge leadership ran the whole operation, as they showed at once when they came to power. Because Ruy Lopez is a communist and an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, he seeks to impose a completely false view of these organisations on the article. Presumably if he wrote articles on FUNK and GRUNK he would do the same thing there, thus creating yet more revert wars. The solution is not the creation of more articles but the consistent reversion of Ruy Lopez's falsehoods. Adam 23:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Surprise of surprises, I concur with Adam Carr. I do not think articles on FUNK or GRUNK should be created in the near future for the reasons he mentioned.


 * Note that Adam Carr is not denying here that what I wrote was correct. Sihanouk was king of Cambodia for many years until Lon Nol tried to overthrow him in a coup in 1970.  Instead Lon Nol found himself in a civil war with Sihanouk and his allies for several years, a war Lon Nol would eventually lose in 1975.  In 1975, Sihanouk once again became head of Cambodia.  The government was GRUNK, the armed forces were the CPNLAF, and the political coalition making up the government was FUNK, which, yes, contained the so-called Khmer Rouge.  Adam Carr wants to throw all of this out the window - the government is Khmer Rouge, the political coalition of several parties is only one party - the Khmer Rouge, the armed forces is called the Khmer Rouge as well.  This would be like with the US invasion of Iraq, calling the US armed forces the Democratic party, calling the US government the Democratic party, and calling a political coalition including the Democratic Party the Democratic party.  It is clearly ridiculous, even more so that all federal branches of government are controlled by the Republicans, just like Sihanouk was head of state in 1975.  Yes, the so-called Khmer Rouge took charge of the country later, just like the Democrats might take over the country as well, but that does not mean since the Democrats might do so potentially in the future you call the government, armed forces and a political coalition of all ruling parties "the Democratic Party".


 * One example, his version is "The Khmer Rouge soldiers told residents..." My version is "The CPNLAF soldiers told residents..."  This is completely ridiculous.  I seriously doubt ANY of those enlisted soldiers were members of the so-called Khmer Rouge.  It would be like saying "The communist (US) soldiers told the residents in the Iraqi town..."  How many US soldiers are communists?  Most of them are Republicans or Democrats, if anything.  And even if they were by some fluke in the so-called Khmer Rouge, the armed forces they were in was the CPNLAF, not the "Khmer Rouge", the so-called Khmer Rouge was a party, not an army.  The Soviet army was not called the "communist party of the soviet union" it was called the Soviet army.


 * The problem with the article is it is just flat out wrong in the Adam Carr version. The sentence beginning "The Khmer Rouge soldiers told residents..."  Anyone who knows the history of Cambodia would immediately see how completely ridiculous that sentence is.  As well as other ones. Ruy Lopez 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have listed this article on Requests_for_comment Ruy Lopez 15:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ruy, I have redrafted the entry on RFC. It's policy to describe disputes in neutral terms. I hope you agree with the revised entry. David | Talk 16:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments from RFC

 * This is only the current skirmish in the long-running battle over this article, in which the issue is whether the communist editor Ruy Lopez (alias Shorne etc etc) will be allowed to whitewash the Khmer Rouge. I say he won't. Adam 02:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're accusing me of being Shorne? Even VeryVerily didn't try to do that. Ruy Lopez 02:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a mild observation; using someone's supposed political sympathies as a snarl word to try to downgrade the value of their position is not a particularly clever way of discussiin something and is almost designed to ensure that no consensus can be agreed. I'm not going to bother resisting the temptation to ask the anti-communist editor Adam to desist. The only question to be asked is, which version most nearly approximates the facts of the case? Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Protection/Acronyms
I have protected the page until some concensus is reached on the use of the acronyms.--nixie 03:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not with the use of the acronyms. The paragraph I wrote says:


 * Sihanouk formed a government in exile, the Royal Government of National Union of Kampuchea (GRUNK) which was run by the National United Front of Kampuchea (FUNK), and whose armed forces were the Cambodian People's National Liberation Armed Forces. These bodies included some neutralist and other non-Communist politicians, but they were generally seen to be fronts for the Khmer Rouge, and when they came to power it was the Communists of the Khmer Rouge who controlled the regime.

The problem is that Ruy Lopez, a well known communist who edits under many different names, insists on writing a propaganda tract rather than a factual article. I will continue to revert this as many times as he does it. I am happy for the article to be protected for a while. Adam 03:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, NPOV doesn't mean "non-communist point of view". Adam, please stop using the word "communist" as an accusation.
 * Second, calling all these organizations "fronts for the Khmer Rouge" is certainly wrong. You can probably say that some of them were dominated by the Khmer Rouge and that others were de-facto controlled by them, but calling them "fronts" is like calling any coallition a front for the most powerful party in it.
 * Third, why would we not have articles on FUNK, GRUNK and what not? Zocky 08:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In reply:
 * Pointing out that Ruy L is a communist is perfectly relevant, because communists don't believe in "NPOV" - they believe that "NPOV" is just a bourgeois myth and that only marxist history is true history. Communists will always try and impose marxist POV on historical/political articles if they are allowed to. I am not opposed to moderately marxian historiography, but I am opposed to crude communist distortion of history of the type Ruy L is notorious for. And yes, NPOV does mean "non-communist point of view."
 * You are in any case quite wrong about the facts of the matter. FUNK and GRUNK were created by the Khmer communists as fronts to deceive gullible westerners (with some success obviously), and had no independent existence whatever. This was shown quite clearly when the KR took power and proceeded to carry out the most radical communist program ever attempted. The non-communist elements in FUNK and GRUNK were simply ignored, and most of them finished up dead or in exile. These are elementary facts well-known to anyone who has read the history of the period.
 * As I said above, I think separate articles on FUNK and GRUNK are not necessary, but I am not opposed to them provided Ruy L doesn't get to write them. Adam 12:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points, Zocky. Adam Carr's rant is so out there, I considered I'd let it speak for itself rather than respond.  He says I'm a communist, and then he goes on to explain that since I'm a communist I will always try and impose marxist POV on articles if I'm allowed to, as any communist would do.


 * Well, putting aside his assertion that only non-communists are capable of NPOV, I'm not even a communist. My interest in Cambodia was piqued by Noam Chomksy, who is more of an anarchist than anything, and whose work was banned in the USSR since he has always harshly critical of communism.


 * If you look like a duck and quack like a duck, you're a duck. Adam 07:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as FUNK and GRUNK being fronts to fool westerners, the first question I have is when did the CPK ever care about what westerners thought? If the CPK cared about what westerners thought, there would have been much better press about them in the western press - the most contact I can find the CPK making to the west is an obscure Danish political sect that made the effort of going to Cambodia and meeting with the CPK.  Having had the French colonizers lording over them for quite a while, the CPK saw westerners mostly as people they wanted out of their country and they cared little of how westerners thought of them (of course, the Vietnamese did not take this view).  And as far as being bogus fronts, Sihanouk ran Cambodia until 1970 and is who started these coalitions.  Webster's dictionary tells us a front can mean both "a movement linking divergent elements to achieve common objectives" and "a person, group, or thing used to mask the identity or true character or activity of the actual controlling agent", and it's important these two meanings not be confused, FUNK was a front in the former sense, not the latter one.


 * No, it was a front in the second sense. I agree that fooling westerners wasn't the sole purpose of forming FUNK and GRUNK. Firstly it was always the standard communist technique to hide behind fronts of this kind (like the NLF in Vietnam and various similar ones in Europe), and secondly Sihanouk's royal prestige gave the KR some entree with the Cambodian peasantry that they couldn't have got on their own. It is simply untrue to say that Sihanouk formed FUNK and GRUNK. They were formed by the KR and Sihanouk agreed to become their figurehead, becuse although he had always disliked the KR, in 1970 he disliked Lon Nol and the Americans more, and he knew there was no path back to power other in alliance with the Chinese and the KR.


 * Then there's Carr's assertion: "This was shown quite clearly when the KR took power and proceeded to carry out the most radical communist program ever attempted." I assume the "radical communist program" was sending farmers who were refugees from US bombing in the large cities back to their farms.  If the CPK had not done this, I'm sure they'd be accused of letting a famine happen instead of trying to "carry out the most radical communist program ever attempted."  Except the CPK is not even who ordered that farmers be sent back to their homes - Sihanouk is, the former King of Cambodia.  Carr is trying to take a very sensible decision and trying to make it sound radical, and then blaming it on people who didn't even decide it.  Another addendum is that if the international food aid that had kept Phnom Penh alive for months prior to its liberation didn't get cut off the day the CPNLAF entered Phnom Penh, GRUNK probably could have taken its time regarding the back-to-the-land policy.  But the food keeping Phnom Penh alive was cut off by international sources immediately and Sihanouk had to act quickly.  I should add that this has been confirmed by Western sources (the cutoff of the food and the food situation at the time), and one's who can't be tagged as "leftist" as that.


 * Even for Ruy Lopez, these are lies of a high order of shamelessness. Does he really think no-one here has read any Cambodian history?


 * As far as the GRUNK, FUNK articles, I've already spoken about that in prior comments. Ruy Lopez 02:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? Sihanouk had to act quickly? Sihanouk was in Beijing when Pnomh Penh fell in April, 1975, and the forced removal to the countryside really got rolling (it had begun earlier in regions the KR already controlled); he had been out of Cambodia since 1870 (although he made a brief visit in 1973 to KR-controlled areas). He didn't return to the country until September, 1975, by which time the process was complete. In any event, Sihanouk was powerless long before then - he told an interviewer in 1973 that the KR "will spit me out like a cherry pit" (his quoted words) when they had no more use for him as a symbolic front. Noel (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about Cambodian history, but I know enough about history and politics in general to have a good idea about how these things work. Many fronts&sup1; were also fronts&sup2; for the Communist party, especially after WWII in Eastern Europe. However, also in Europe, primarily before and during WWII, there were plenty of fronts&sup1; which where genuine political coallitions of anti-fascist parties, often headed by the local communist parties.

If there's evidence that Sihanouk was forced or blackmailed by KR to head the FUNK and GRUNK, they should be called fronts&sup2; for KR. OTOH, if Sihanouk and others chose to cooperate with them for expected political advantage, then theye were a willing part of a coallition, making FUNK and GRUNK more genuine fronts&sup1; than fronts&sup2; for KR.

As far as the CPNLAF is concerned, if I'm understanding it correctly it was a the military of the GRUNK. It's possible, and judging by the consequences, quite probable that it was controlled by KR, but calling it a front&sup2; for KR is like calling any military organization a front&sup2; for its controling pollitical faction, i.e. wrong. We don't do it for other military organizations and there's no reason to do it here. Zocky 17:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that there has been too much conflation between the armed forces, the government, and the political coalition (FUNK), all of which are called in this article the (derogatory slang) name of one party in the political coalition, the Khmer Rouge.


 * I also want to point out as far as the coalition ("front"), that when Sihanouk eventually stepped down as head of state, it was to be replaced by Khieu Samphan, who had been a close ally of Sihanouk's in Sihanouk's Sangkum party going back to the 1950's. He had actually been selected as a candidate by Sihanouk in the 1962 elections for Sihanouk's Sangkum party, and had won a seat.  That Khieu was left-wing was no secret, and Sihanouk had always tilted towards a socialist model of economic development and political alliance anyhow, one of the reasons the CIA helped out him in Lon Nol's 1970 coup.  So the point is Sihanouk was replaced by a long-time ally, and one whose leftist views were no secret to Sihanouk, and which were some extent shared by him.  Ruy Lopez 22:55, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't have a knowledge of Cambodian history, and only a ?questionable? general knowledge of history, don't assume that what you ?know? is correct. Adam Carr has took his time to attempt settle this uneeded dispute, but some certain people decided to use uneeded rebuttal to make this problem (if any) a major one. Squash 10:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As another data-point, I looked to see what the Chanda book (see below) made of the whole GRUNK/FUNK/etc thing (although of course it's mostly focussed on events after 1974, it does contain good coverage of the events leading up to that). I discovered that he mentioned GRUNK (it's in the index under "Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia" - GRUNK doesn't even have an index entry) on only 4 pagess. I couldn't find any mention of FUNK (which I assume means something like "Front/Force Unité Nationale Khmer" - I'm assuming it's a French acronym, like GRUNK).

Chanda also uses the name "Communist Party of Kampuchua" (CPK) to describe the faction of the Cambodian party that later took power as what we call the KR (although they apparently called themselves the Angkar before the consolidated their power). Just to make things even more confusing, there are a number of different Cambodian Communist Party organizations - the Khmer People's Revolutionary Party (KPRP), the Khmer Issarak (a name in the 50's, similar to the Viet Minh) - all very complicated. Noel (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

KR flag
The flag is not, in fact, that of the Khmer Rouge. It is the flag of the 'Monatio'; a group of Phnom Penh students led by Lon Non (brother of Lon Nol) who attempted to usurp the Khmer Rouge victory on April 17th, 1975 by taking control of the Khmer Republic's Ministry of Information and pretending to be the Khmer Rouge, thus confusing the Khmer Rouge themselves. The tactic did not work. Because the Monatio triumphantly drove through Phnom Penh with this flag just prior to Khmer Rouge entry, and some Khmer Rouge child soldiers were also subsequently photographed yelling and running around with it (while brandishing pistols), the flag was believed to be in some way associated with the Khmer Rouge. It should be obvious that any flag with a cross-potent at its center could not be that of the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge did not have a victory flag. Their only preoccupation was to turn around evacuate the cities, which explains their sullen demeanor upon 'victory'. elephant_range@yahoo.com (Martin Warren)

The flag was added, I think, by Squash, who is Cambodian, and who generally knows what he is talking about. Can Squash clarify his knowledge of the flag? It certainly isn't the flag of "Democratic Kampuchea". Adam 00:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There has always been some confusion concerning this flag. Where did you get the information about "MONATIO"? There is hardly any information - if not any at all about this... This flag is not the flag of Democratic Cambodia (which is a red flag with a modified yellow coloured Angkor Wat), but rather the the flag of the party itself. It is to general concensus of flag makers that this flag is that of the Khmer Rouge. The BBC uses this flag on their news article - See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/242670.stm Squash 29 June 2005 10:27 (UTC)

Communist dishonesty
Why do communists have to deny that their favorite regimes were actually communist? J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 05:00 (UTC) 11:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a puzzle, isn't it? When I was a Maoist (30 years ago), we loudly proclaimed our politics. Now they skulk around and pretend to be harmless liberals, while writing the most shameless (and obvious, to the trained observer) Stalinist apologetics. R Lopez is a particularly nauseating example, but the Communist Party of Wikipedia has many other members. Adam 11:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah now all the psychological pieces of the puzzle are fitting together. I can easily imagine Adam Carr in a self-criticism session 30 years ago disclosing his party line petit bourgeois tendencies.  That must be what's behind his whole flip-out-like-Tom Cruise thing.


 * The East is red, the sun has risen, Australia has made Adam Carr. He creates revert wars on Wikipedia, Hu er hei yo, he's the savior of them all! Red Fraction 02:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did indeed engage in fearless self-criticism, and very spiritually uplifting it was, too. I of course owe my current relentless ideological rigour to Maoist training. It also means I can spot a commie at 100 paces with my eyes closed. But I don't recall this expression "whole flip-out-like-Tom Cruise thing." Perhaps you can explain it. Adam 02:54, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see FUNK and GRUNK, but where's the CRUNK? J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Communist Revolutionaries United to Nullify Kampuchea? Adam 28 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)

on an unrelated note, if you're not still banning yourself from looking at these kinds of articles, when you read this maybe add your two cents on Talk:Fidel Castro. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 09:49 (UTC)

Oh dear. Is it as bad as I fear? I may yield to temptation and have a look. Adam 28 June 2005 10:13 (UTC)

it's actually somewhat minor (especially compared to previous RV wars that article's gone through,) and i thought you might actually agree with 172 on this one, but i was curious to get your input anyway. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Lack of any serious ideology
The Khmer Rouge were probably not communists... Comunism was the "take it in your cart at the idea supermarket" anti-colonialist ideology of that time... The Khmer Rouge grew into something else. Out of control any ideology... All the ideology section is ...blablabla... this can't be reduced to short sentences like "extreme form of Maoïsm...." this need a more serious analysis obout their ideology or more problably IMO their total lack of any serious (ideology/political theory and anything else that has some sense...) caused a serious lack of intelligence combined with some serious inferiority complex. Ericd 1 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

I disagree. Pol Pot and several other KR leaders were trained in Marxism in Paris and were lifelong communists. I agree that this foundation of European Marxism was overlaid by xenophobic anti-colonialism, but that is of course part of the definition of Maoism. Adam 2 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

Pol Pot & co. were certainly Maoists, albeit much more deranged and radical than their Chinese counterparts (which is no small feat) J. Parker Stone 2 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

Well, no doubt that the Khmer Rouge leaders were communists had contact with the French Communist party and attended several party seminar when studying in Paris and that Pol Pot claimed in 1976 his organisation was Marxist-Leninist. However what they had in mind when in power is fuzzy doesn't seem to be a marxist project, IMO this was more a form of utopian socialism.

I have searchead for some element about their ideology and say to the less they did not bring a major contribution to marxist theories. Ieng Sary had summarized the Khmer Rouge ideology in that sentence (approximate translation) : "We don't speak about socialism, we built it. "Similar claim that could be summarized as "we don't need theories" have been made in several occasion by the Khmer Rouge. It's a strange conception of Marxism which is supposed to be "scientific socialism".

Since a long time I had the feeling that the Khmer Rouge behavior has some roots in pre-marxist philosophy. Sacha Sher http://khmersrouges.chez.tiscali.fr/ seems to confirm a part of my intuition. The Khmer Rouge leaders learned utopian socialist writers with the French communists (This is often considered has unnecessary in communist training, as utopian socialist is considered as obsoleted by scientific socialism). According to Sher Pol Pot and Khieu Sampan were heavily influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

As for Maoïsm it seems that the Khmer Rouge turned officially Maoïst after Krutschev report about the crimes of Stalin and because of the support of USSR to Sihanouk. However according to Sher the influence of Mao writings on the Khmer Rouge leaders was close to zero.

Ericd 2 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

i remember reading somewhere that Pol Pot had visited Beijing during the late Sihanouk era (late '60s?) and admired the Cultural Revolution. furthermore, the KR's #1 patron was always China far and away, which I'm sure was motivated by a desire for regional dominance against the USSR and Vietnam, but also suggests that the Maoists may've had some affinity with the KR's ideology. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

And now for something completely different
It's time for.............(drum roll).........

A WIKIPEDIA SMACKDOWN FIGHT!!!!

In one corner, former Maoist and current anti-communist crusader, ready to rid the Khmer Rouge article of any weird acronyms, is ADAM!!!

In the other corner, insisting on a confusing array of acronyms being added (this list is not comprehensive: GRUNK, FUNK, PUNK, LUNK, PODUNK, and SPELUNK) to attempt to mitigate the Khmer Rouge's historical crimes (a million deaths is a statistic, right?), is RUY!!!

(This fight brought to you by nasty capitalist marketeers, over Ruy's vehement objections.)

A2Kafir 2 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

you forgot the CRUNK juice. J. Parker Stone 2 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)


 * I SAID the list was incomplete! :) A2Kafir 2 July 2005 22:29 (UTC)

I'm not sure I think this is an entirely appropriate subject for humour. Adam 3 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

Revert War Part II
To reach some sort of an agreement with the contents of this page, I'll list the points where the two sides disagree on:

1) Whether Sihanouk was really in power in 1975.

2) Whether records of Khmer Rouge atrocities should be listed.

3) Whether evacuations of the cities were really necessary.

I urge everyone to weigh in on this. My thoughts:

1) Sihanouk was nominally head of state, but the real power rested with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, according to Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99. Also, there was no mention of any acronyms like FUNK or GRUNK. So either the people who made the Encyclopedia (along with a whole lot of other books) are liars or Ruy is using a very interesting source, which we would all like to see.

2) There is no reason the atrocities shouldn't be listed, as no one has denied their existance.

3) Another "blame America for the genocide" with an added twist. According to Ruy, American bombing drove Cambodians into the cities. This may be true. However, Ruy goes on to say that "international food aid" was keeping them alive. I have never heard of this "food aid" from ANYWHERE ELSE, so Ruy should give a source for that as well. As the story continues, Cambodians had to be evacuated at gunpoint to prevent starvation. Well, as starvation occured anyway, this couldn't possibly be the reason. And then we look at Vietnam, a country bombed much more extensively than Cambodia, who had no starvations. In addition, if the alleged "food aid" was actually cut off and Cambodia was on the verge of starvation, the communist could have EASILY asked China or the Soviets, who had supplied tons of food to North Vietnam during the war, for help. CJK 4 July 2005.


 * you're correct of course. i don't deny that the U.S. bombings had an impact, and there are plenty of people who've contended that the KR movement wouldn't have grown if we hadn't embroiled ourselves in Cambodia. however, the problem after they had won was their own twisted ideology, which was entirely inwardly focused and set on "self-sufficiency."


 * i'd also like to point out to Ruy that it was Vietnamese-backed Communists who overthrew the KR regime, so you really don't need to keep apologizing for them. Cambodians and the Vietnamese hated them just as much as the U.S. "corporate media" does. J. Parker Stone 4 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)


 * The US food aid program is discussed in many sources. Although it's a waste of my time to go searching for one since Adam Carr reverts me regardless, one reference to it is a March 11, 1975 New York Times article on page 3 called "New U.S. Program Fails to Ease Rice Scarcity for Cambodians".  Of course, in the warped, hysterical non-reality of this encyclopedia article, you should pretend that article was never printed, as the smack of reality would destroy the firmament of the constructed mythology that is this page.  Also wiped from your mind the years after 1979 when the US supported the Khmer Rouge. Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
 * because the Khmer Rouge were the only ones who opposed the Vietnamese presence, right? the U.S. gave limited support to the KPNLAF and the ANS in the mid-'80s. it's true that the CGDK alliance (albeit a very shaky one -- Son Sann and Sihanouk weren't exactly best of friends with the KR, to put it very mildly, and Sihanouk complained that KR guerrillas were attacking his) included the KR, but to say "the U.S. supported them" is a gross simplification and distortion of the facts.
 * given your apparent enthusiasm for their "life-saving" policies though I don't see why you'd object to such support if it had occurred. J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
 * Just close your eyes and repeat: "Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
 * lol, wise words for Ruy to consider J. Parker Stone 6 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

In response to Ruy: I think the U.S. gave food aid to the Lon Nol Army, but not civilians. And even if they did, I have already pointed out the absurdity of your logic in the above. In addition, the Khmer Rouge did not evict Cambodians because of shortages but as they claim "American bombings" that threatened urban centers, which never transpired (the Mayaguez bombings were targeted against oil facilities in two coastal towns and lasted only a few days. CJK

In addition, the U.S. supported mostly anti-communist groups which were run by Sihanouk, so please don't blame America for "supporting the Khmer Rouge". CJK. 6 July 2005.


 * You don't "think" the US gave food aid to civilians? Why don't you read the source I posted and find out?  I don't know why I am the only one who has to post sources, especially since I am reverted because people don't read the sources, and go by what they "think" anyhow.  As far as why the army began sending refugees back to the countryside, the New York Times at the time said it was "a journey away from death by certain starvation".  So the New York Times said at the time that the return of refugees saved their lives.  What is your source to trump this?
 * And the US supported the Khmer Rouge after 1979. Period.
 * I'm shocked that you mention Sihanouk's coalition, which you call "mostly anti-communist groups which were run by Sihanouk". If the non-KR groups in the coalition were antipathetic enough to communism to be called anti-communist, I'm not sure why they'd be in a coalition with the Khmer Rouge, but I'll skip that logical error for a moment.  Sihanouk ran a similar coalition in the early 1970s called FUNK - yet mention of it here seems to be forbidden.  In fact, there is only one substantial difference between FUNK and the coalition - the fact that the part of the Khmer Rouge in the presiding government was not in it (mostly eastern KR'ers, or older KR'ers who had spent time in the DRV).  So when the US supports the coalition, it suddenly becomes run by Sihanouk and is even mostly anti-communist.  When the US is against what is basically the same coalition, Sihanouk disappears and it is a front for the so-called Khmer Rouge.  Whatever.  As I said to Trey Stone: "Oceania is at war with Eurasia.  Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia". Ruy Lopez 6 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)
 * good try, but there's a couple of problems. first, we've already established that royalist influence in GRUNK was marginal at best, and FUNK came to be dominated by the KR, or they wouldn't have been able to immediately implement their utopian policies (no sorry, Sihanouk ("The Royal Goverment of Kampuchea") did not order the evacuation of Phnom Penh, nice try though.) secondly, Sihanouk and Son Sann did not initially want to join in coalition with the Khmer Rouge, but the fact was that they were the most powerful insurgent force at the time (though lacked civilian support compared to the other two, for very clear reasons Ruy is trying to whitewash.) whether that was a wise move is another story, but the fact that the ANS had 5000 guerrillas and the KPNLF had 12-15,000 shows they were certainly not marginal -- compare that to the CPNLAF pre-1975, which was an armed force entirely dominated by the Khmer Rouge, and the only viable insurgent force.
 * so please, you can argue over the merits of U.S. policy and the possible difficulties if the CGDK had succeeded, but to say they directly supported the KR is belied by the evidence. and stop using that 1984 quote, it applies to you and your apologia more than anyone else. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
 * Somebody needs to cite some sourec for the casualities from U.S. bombings.


 * The evacuation of the cities was forced by the KR. You are the only person I have ever heard deny this, Ruy.


 * There probably should be some mention of U.S. involvement in the coup. The U.S. was afraid that Vietnamese communists were going to take over Cambodia.  Which by the way, is one of the reasons the "Cold War" link should be kept in this article.


 * Ruy, why do you keep deleting the paragraph about Pol Pot? It even has a reference. Rangek July 6, 2005 16:23 (UTC)

The article you gave was written in 1975, when the KR controlled almost all the rural areas so even if there were tons of farmers in Cambodia and millions of tons of food, the urban centers could not receive food. So the New York Times, a paper which usually accepts propaganda of this sort, may have thought it was a "march away from death" but in reality they did not have a clue what was going on at the time. I have already given one source--Microsoft Encarta Encylclopedia, which you have not discredited (and will provide more if asked). It states that Sihanouk was nominally head of Cambodia in 1975, but the real power was with the KR. He was held under house arrest, as well. The difference between the 1970 "coalition" and 1979 coalition was that in 1970 there was no reason for anti-communists to revolt, as Lon Nol was anti-communist. In 1979 both the KR and anti-communists had qualms against the Vietnamese puppet government, the KR that is was Marxist and pro-Soviet, anti-communists that a Vietnamese puppet government was installed. The U.S. may have indirectly supported the KR, but it was principally for all resistance groups. Whatever the case, this isn't the issue, the issue is with your reverts that you fail to justify or cite your sources. CJK 6 July 2005.
 * "the New York Times, a paper which usually accepts propaganda". So the New York Times is not acceptable as a source because it prints communist propaganda.  Whatever. Ruy Lopez 9 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)
 * ouch CJK, you (and by you i mean that single line in your comment) got burned. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

The point CJK was making was that a reference from the NYT from 1975 is not a valid source because (a) it was almost impossible for outsiders to know what was going on inside Cambodia at that time, (b) 30 years of subsequent research and scholarship have shown that the NYT's opinion in 1975 was incorrect, (c) people who had opposed the Vietnam War (like the NYT, and like me) were far too willing in the 1970s to believe the best of the Vietnamese and Cambodian communists. Most of us now know better. Adam 9 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

i say we keep the article frozen in its current state. forever. BTW Adam I don't know if you already saw this: J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stay protected for a while: I have better things to do than argue with stalinists all day. Thanks for drawing to my attention the ArbCom decision, which the ArbCom itself didn't bother telling me about. Adam 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Again, that was an off the hand remark, the main reason the source was unacceptable was that it was written before the genocide took place or did not have correspondents on the ground. The article is 30 years old, written when the KR first got to power. I don't see how I got "burned". And even if I did, Ruy is showing his ill will by failing to respond to other commments. As Ruy would say, whatever. [] for his RFC.CJK 9 July 2005.

CJK's edits
From May until July 3rd there has been an argument over the terminology Khmer Rouge versus FUNK, GRUNK and the army. With this yet unresolved, on July 3rd, CJK lowered the estimate of US bombing casualties, removed references to possible US involvement in Cambodia's 1970 coup, and made other changes. So we have gone from one problem that has been unresolvable for months, to three or more problems.

From a first in first out perspective, I would prefer we deal with the first issue before dealing with these new ones. That aside, if that is not the case, then all three issues must be resolved together. The KR/FUNK/GRUNK thing has dragged on since May. What is the next step? Request for comments? Mediation? Locking does not seem to solve anything - as soon as the article is unlocked the revert war starts up again. Ruy Lopez 07:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * it has been established that the Khmer Rouge were de facto in charge of FUNK, GRUNK, and the CPNLAF. the organizations are now mentioned in the article (they were not before) and properly characterized. the only one disputing this is you. i would be fine with a request for arbitration on this article which i am confident would confirm the current version. J. Parker Stone 08:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * even if this were the case, what does it have to do with anything? Ruy Lopez 09:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reason there is a revert war at this article is your determination to insert your views into it. You know quite well that these views contradict the established historical record about the actions of the Khmer Rouge, as well as the views of the majority of Wikipedia editors, and that you cannot succeed in the long run in imposing your views on Wikipedia. The real solution therefore is for you to desist. I don't know what satisfaction you gain through this futile campaign. You have repeatedly threatened to go and edit other wikis. I suggest everyone would be happier if you carried out this threat. Adam 08:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I would write about you. You're determined to insert your views into it, it contradicts the established historical record (the opposing view here seems to seek to avoid discussing details and specifics of the historical record), you're determined to insert your views into it (second mention), you should desist, your campaign is futile.  I don't know what my editing on other wikis has to do with this article, does one have to be monogamous in wiki editing? Ruy Lopez 09:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that is your attitude, we will just go through this tiresome cycle of revert-war-protection-revert-war-protection until you either desist or get yourself banned. There is only one of you against many of us, so we can revert you forever. The bottom line is that Wikipedia does not accept your view of history or of world events, and you can't force it to. So what is the point? Adam 09:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The basis for not accepting Ruy's edits should be because of their lack of historical accuracy, not just because of the strength of numbers of editors who disagree. A2Kafir 13:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Calling the army, the political coalition and the government all "Khmer Rouge" is not "historically accurate". It would be like going back to the 1930s in the US and calling the US popular front, the US armed forces and the US government all "the Democratic party" because the Democrats were part of the popular front, the armed forces were led by a Democratic commander-in-chief, and the US government was led by a Democrat.  And that analogy goes too far because the head of the government and armed forces was a Democrat - in the case of Cambodia, Sihanouk was not in the communist party (or I haven't heard anyone argue otherwise).  I have said this many times and it is just silly.  Two of the people making comments in here opposing me are currently being admonished by the arbitrators for misconduct (Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring/Proposed_decision).  But such is typical - Adam Carr is being admonished by six arbitrators for his misconduct, yet he continues to go around and make the same discourteous, personal, ad hominem attacks, because he doesn't want to discuss facts or sources or details, why bother when you can throw mud and try to convince people someone is a fanatic follower of Lyndon LaRouche, or a fanatic PLP/RCP member, or whatnot?  It works well, so he'll keep doing it.  But it's good to see that the arbitrators and high mucky-mucks of Wikipedia are beginning to notice the Adam Carr problem. Ruy Lopez 18:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That only works with editors who (a) are actually here to write an encyclopaedia and (b) are susceptible to argument. Neither applies in Lopez's case. Of course the reasin we reject his edits is because they are wrong. But ultimately what goes or does not go into Wikipedia has to be decided by numbers. Adam 13:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since this is supposedly about my changes, I might as well justify them. With regards to the coup, there is no evidence the CIA backed it. For an encyclopedia article to say it was "widely suspected" is somewhat odd, it doesn't matter if it was "suspected" it only matters whether it occured or not. It didn't occur, and there is no evidence as far as I know, though if anyone can find any I will change it. As for the bombing deaths, I got these figures from Henry Kissingers "Ending the VIetnam War". However, certain members of the left think Kissinger is a liar or war criminal, so I would compromise by saying either a round 100,000 that Encarta Encyclopedia says or "estimates vary greatly between 30,000-500,000." I have never seen the 600,000 figure. CJK 11 July 2005.
 * If the issue going back to May is not resolved before these two new issues that you created on July 3rd, then all 3 issues are bundled together. The GRUNK/FUNK issue has gone on for months and I think consensus should be made on that before dealing with these two.  Of course you're free to add these two new logs to the fire, but then they just become part of the original issue.  Anyhow, as I've said before, the edit wars on this article have been going on for months (years) so I think mediation or arbitration or comments or something is needed.  The current situation is edit war, lock, edit war, lock, edit war, lock (ad infinitum). Ruy Lopez 02:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is entirely your doing. Are you willing to give a commitment to accept a majority verdict on these issues? Adam 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is true that there is no evidence of CIA involvement in the 1970 coup, that should certainly be stated. But it is also a fact that CIA involvement is widely assumed, and not just on the dingbat left. I have certainly always assumed that the CIA arranged the coup. Why wouldn't they? So that widespread belief should also be stated, even if it is errroneous. Adam 01:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if we say "it was widely assumed at the time, but no evidence has surfaced thus far" but the way it is worded would indicate that the CIA was probably involved. CJK 12 July 2005.


 * Another datapoint; Chanda's book says (pp. 64) that "Washington nonetheless was aware of it and did nothing to stop it", and quotes Frank Snepp as saying 'We were in a position to rub our hands and take advantage of it'. His footnotes indicate that his source for this is William Shawcross, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia (which I don't think I have), which I think would be the best source to consulte/reference for this point - and it's another book that should be in "Further reading" (I don't think I recall seeing it). Noel (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

And, uh, how exactly could they stop it? CJK 18 Juky 2005

Ruy, Adam and others have picked apart your broken analogy to the U.S. Democratic Party (which can basically be summed up by saying that Sihanouk was a figurehead-in-exile and the Khmer Rouge were in charge of all positions of any importance) before. You need to stop making the argument, unless you can present evidence of any meaningful royalist/neutralist/notkhmerrougeist control in said organizations. no doubt you'll respond to this with another faulty argument, but i don't wish to go around in circles, it's been explained several times.' On another note, i have a small problem with the current article -- the paragraph about the evacuation's ideological origins. While it is absolutely true (and there are sources describing the fact that the KR were evacuating towns outside of Phnom Penh prior to their takeover that prove it -- in addition to evacuating all towns after the takeover) the current wording i think is flawed because it contains original commentary that, while truthful, comes across as pov. i'll try to work on rewording it while retaining the substance of the current version the next time this page is unprotected. J. Parker Stone 02:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
(copied) Which is entirely your doing. Are you willing to give a commitment to accept a majority verdict on these issues? Adam 02:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Since multiple RFCs have failed, I have moved one up the dispute resolution chain, and have just created this - Requests_for_mediation. There are 6 mediation committee members, and I will without question accept the verdict of any one of 5 of those members decisions regarding the GRUNK/FUNK/Sihanouk issue.  But if Ed Poor was chosen as the mediator, I don't know what I'd think.  I have had edit wars with him in the past, he is very anti-communist, I don't know what I'd think.  Any of the other 5 I would accept their decision on this issue on this page forever, yes.  The matter would be at rest, even if they rule against me.  Would you accept it?  If you would, indicate this so that there will be a general consensus for mediation.


 * Other people who have been editing this page, if you want this issue to be resolved, then agree here or on the mediation page to accept the verdict of the mediator of whether or not we will use the terminology GRUNK, FUNK, what our position on Sihnaouk's power in 1975 is and so forth. I am concerned Ed Poor, who I discussed before, will be chosen instead of one of the other 5 mediators, and I'm not sure what I'd think of that.  The mediation page talks about how mediation is a "neutral" person.  So I'm not sure what I'd think of the verdict in that situation.  That aside, I will accept the mediator's verdict, even if they decide against me.  Other people who have been editting this page and who will accept the mediator decision on this issue should reply here or on the mediation page linked above so they will know we have consensus for mediation.


 * This should be done one step at a time. We will see how it works out for this issue and proceed from there.  I have indicated on the mediation page that if this issue is resolved, we might want the mediator to stick around for other issues on this page.  Theoretically, we could get to a point where everyone accepts this page. Ruy Lopez 03:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mediators cannot "mediate" on matters of fact. If a mediator rules that the sun goes round the earth, I would not accept that and neither would you. A mediator can only mediate on matters of process. The issue of process here is your refusal to accept the views of the majority of people editing this article, not just on the fairly trivial "GRUNK-FUNK issue" but on your whole campaign of apologetics for the Khmer Rouge. What we want from you is an undertaking to accept the majority opinion here, not the decision of a mediator. Adam 03:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So I propose to put this to a mediator and accept their decision, yet you refuse to accept their decision. Interesting.  Who is this "majority" you speak of?  The CJK account has existed for 14 days...and you're the one who talks about "sock puppets".    Another user is in arbitration and is about to be banned from editing political articles.  You yourself were just dealt with in arbitration for your behavior.  Talking about sock puppets, Rangek appeared on March 31st, and his 11th edit was on this page, what a surprise.  The only real user who has poked his head into this page was A2Kafir, who you immediately pounched on to do your whole mud-throwing  "Ruy Lopez is a communist and an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, he seeks to impose a completely false view of these organisations on the article" routine when he popped his head in for a moment.  Your mud-throwing works for a short while, which is why you do it so much (and the arbitrators have chastised you for it), but eventually people catch on.  So you throw mud, then the sock puppets CJK and Rangek give the appearance of a "majority" and there it goes.  A2Kafir hasn't even looked at this page that much, if he got involved on a serious level I doubt he would be unreasonable.  Helpmeet and BoxFormation appear to be sock puppets as well - although they tend to agree with me, so it's fine if you dispute that.  So that really leaves only you, me and the sock puppets.   So...what majority? Ruy Lopez 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ruy, I am not a sock puppet. I am a professor of chemistry at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania (I actually start this Fall, so no picture or web page yet, but you can see my name here.  If you would like to quiz me to verify my id, please feel free.).  Granted, I am a relatively new user, but I didn't come here to push some adgenda.  I have always had an interest in the Khmer Rouge since hearing some of my father's co-workers relate their escapes from Cambodia at the time in question and after seeing The Killing Fields.  (BTW, not to open another can of worms here, but why is this notable film not mentioned here?)  If you look at my first edit of this article, you will see it is just the inocuous insertion of a comma.  Checking the history, you will see that I watched this article for a month before making my next edit.  A few days later, I weighed into the "edit war" between you and Adam.


 * At the time it seemd to me like you were just messing up the article, so I reverted without comment to save Adam the trouble. As things progressed I learned that you had a reason for your edits, even if the edits themselves lacked coherence for lack of a better word.  I tried to see if I could find a compromise between you and Adam (since he seems to have had quite enough of you and vice-versa, I thought a fresh face might be able to smooth things over.  Naive?  Yes.)  Your lack of references, frankly incoherent rantings, and sometimes apparent sympathy for the organization that has destroyed so many lives pushed me to become a seeming Adam Carr sock puppet I guess. I tried to reach out to you.... (I can hear Adam laughing now....)


 * I agree with Adam about mediation. There are facts here.  Maybe some of them we will never know (history is annoying like that).  Some of them we can find out.  If a mediator comes in and makes a judgement that is in conflict with the facts, i can't see how Wikipedia can let that stand.  I have a suspicion though that any mediator worth the name would not do such a thing.  So mediation may be helpful here. Rangek 06:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have never created or used a sock puppet, as any inquiry will show. This accusation coming from Lopez, who has used at least half a dozen identities (Richard Chilton, Lance something, Shorne, Eco etc etc - User:PMA has a complete list) during his various campaigns here, is a piece of typically monumental cheek. Adam 06:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Where did I say you were the one using a sock puppet? I said you and A2Kafir were the only two real users, and the rest were sockpuppets.  Maybe the sock puppets are run by User:JoeM, who knows?  As far as me being Shorne, you are the only person who has ever made that claim, even VeryVerily didn't (well he did, then he stopped doing so).  Shorne hasn't edited in 2005 anyhow, he told me was leaving. Ruy Lopez 06:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Adam, A2Kafir, Rangek, Squash, and Dr. Stone (yes the same Trey that got banned a billion times in a row, you don't have to remind me.) i think that's sufficient. J. Parker Stone 06:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, do a sock-puppet check if you don't believe me. Just because I am a new user does not automatically indicate sock-puppetry. I have an interest in the Cold War, and my edits would indicate so. Helpmeet and Box Formation are far more likely to be sockpuppets. CJK 12 July 2005.

Good 'further reading' item
Here's a good book I was going to add to "further reading" (in part because I don't want to weigh too heavily on Kiernan and Chandler, but in part just because it's a darn good book), but I can't because the article's locked. I hope someone can add it when it's unlocked:


 * Nayan Chanda, Brother Enemy: The War After the War (Collier, New York, 1986)

Chanda was the Indochina correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review, and this book covers Indochina after the fall of Saigon (with an extensive background covering events before that). It covers the Cambodia situation, and the growing split between the KR and the Vietnamese, and the resulting invasion, in great detail, but it's also very readable. It's based on personal reporting (many interviews, etc) but is also very comprehensively footnoted. Noel (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Our friend, Mr. Lopez
Today's featured article is the Polish September Campaign. Interesting article. I made one minor link change and later reverted some juvenile vandalism. Checked back later and found this fascinating edit by Ruy Lopez:. Basically, he removes a part about the Nazi-Soviet cooperation in an apparent attempt to justify Soviet aggression. Saying the land had been Russian before 1918, however, isn't much justification, given that Poland did not exist as a nation until after World War 1 because of Russian, German, and Austrian aggression two centuries earlier.

So I took a look at his recent edits and found this:. He did a mass deletion of the list of people found to be Soviet spies because of the VENONA decrypts. Now, I can understand wanting to make sure that each member on the list is justified, but deleting the whole list (rather than contesting individual members) is a bit extreme.

My point is that Ruy Lopez's edits have a pattern of trying to remove or alter parts that might not be flattering to socialists/Soviets/communists/leftists. This is also clear from his user page, where he complains that his viewpoints don't get a fair shake. Well, here on the Khmer Rouge page, he has constantly asserted that the Khmer Rouge did not do certain things, attributing them to the government (as distinct from the party) or to little-known groups with odd acronyms (CRUNK, et.al.). When it was suggested he write articles on these supposedly influential groups, he refused. He complains that government policies cannot be attribiuted to a particular party, then compares that to parties in democracies. That comparison does not work; in totalitarian societies, the party in charge is the one that counts and brooks NO opposition of any kind. In those cases, it is entirely appropriate to say that the party carried out x policy, even if it was "officialy" the government that did it. The Nazis attacked Poland. The Khmer Rouge evacuated the cities. A2Kafir 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the fact is that strongarm tactics like Adam's are justified in situations like this. check Talk:Capitalism for a good example -- Ruy engages in a circular argument about how he doesn't think that's what capitalism is, and the article has to give equal treatment to his viewpoint in the intro -- his being the socialist, anti-capitalist characterization. there's no use in arguing with him -- he'll just break out broken analogies (like comparing Khmer Rouge-CPNLAF to U.S. Democratic Party-U.S. Army,) or talk about how he's been here longer than you, etc., etc.


 * you're right that he is constantly editting to provide "balance" for the Stalinist/Maoist or Soviet perspective, even when it's at odds with reality, and so there's no other recourse except to revert because it's propaganda. J. Parker Stone 23:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well operating from Ruy's perspective you would have to believe whatever garbage Communist/Socialist organizations put out while also dismissing hundreds of books and news reports as a government cover-up.


 * It scares me that he has been doing this thing for a year and never gets punished...CJK 19 July 2005

I'm pleased that other editors are realising what a threat to Wikipedia people like Lopez are. I have been making suggestions about dealing with this problem for over a year. In the absence of any structural means of getting rid of Lopez and his ilk, robust edit wars are the only alternative. Adam 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
I'm unprotecting because it's been protected for far too long and there is no discussion on this talk page. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

GRUNK and FUNK
I put up a request for articles on those subjects:.

Mr. Lopez, feel free to fill in the details of those organizations in those articles. I also wanted anyone looking to start a "requested article" to take a crack at it. A2Kafir 13:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one of the few cases where I am in consensus with Adam Carr - me or him creating these pages would not be a good idea since we are not in consensus on this page. Thus, the edit war would spread from this page to those pages.  The edit war already spreads to some extent to History of Cambodia, Pol Pot, Cambodia and so forth.  So I am in agreement with Adam Carr that adding two new more pages to these pages in edit wars makes little sense since consensus has not been reached here - we will have six or seven pages with a revert war instead of four or so. Ruy Lopez 18:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's one reason for not having separate articles on GRUNK and FUNK (although of course the edit wars Lopez refers to are entirely of his own creation), but the more important reason is that these organisations existed only on paper and functioned only as fronts of the Khmer Rouge. They should be briefly mentioned at this article but don't merit any further attention. Adam 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * With this "paper" organization having, of course, the former ruler of Cambodia as its head, Norodom Sihanouk. So what is Carr saying, Sihanouk ran the Communist Party of Cambodia? Ruy Lopez 00:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that he was a figurehead. Adam 00:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)