Talk:Khmer Rouge/Archive 9

yuon (barbarian?)
Yuon does not mean barbarian. It is the term we refer to Vietnamese. Seriously people need to cite their accountable sources before they make such claims. What's next, leiv is derogatory? I'll say yuon and use it cause its natural khmer. We dont need western "scholars" to tell us their ignorance of Khmer language as they understand next to nothing about it. http://www.phnompenhpost.com/TXT/letters/L1215-5.htm
 * I'll go ahead and edit that out. Trilinguist 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Main photo
Main photo should be of a Khmer Rouge personality, not of victims of their slaughter. Let's remain NPOV, even to the bad guys ;) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly NPOV to say that the most significant thing the KR regime did was to kill large numbers of people, and the photo to serves to illustrate the point. Adam 08:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that it is NPOV. It should really be a photo of like Sherurcij said. The photo shows a plain biased view. I strongly suggest using this photo from this link of some of the Khmer Rouge leadership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kr4.JPG. The picture currently of the Khmer Rouge doesn't show exactly except a facade that's not neutral. We should use the actual picture of some of the leaders instead and use the photo of the prisoners, detainees, victims, etc. within the body of the wiki article instead. Just because Khmer Rouge were such a horrible group of people I don't see the wikipedia article on Hitler's Nazi Party displayed a picture of Jewish people being killed or interned while seeing starving people. So why do it to Khmer Rouge? It should be the picture of how some of the leadership looked like. Or maybe use the Flag instead. Or go fuck yourself.

Paracite 03:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)(edited on 12 Dec. 2006)

The flag is bogus. Adam 11:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I can argue in the section is was at is irrelevant to the section to the article. I switched the pictures according to the section that seemed most relevant.

Please explain why it is bogus. Or were you refering to the national flag? I was confused with what you were saying haha. Paracite 21:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Flag
Doesn't the Khmer Rouge have a flag? Why doesn't Wikipedia, the world's best source, have a picture of it? It's divided diagonally by red and black, and in the center is a white swastika-like thing looking somewhat like a cross. Just remember not to confuse the Khmer Rouge's flag with the Democratic Kapuchea one! (March 5 2007)

Because it AINT the Flag of the Khmer Rouge. Its the Flag of Monatio. It got confused!

Cambodian genocide article request
I think there should be one. Like you have an articles about Nazis, Third Reich, Auschwitz etc (dozens or hundreds or such) AND the Holocaust. Here you get only this article, "Cambodia under Pol Pot", and some specific articles (biographies, Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, etc.) - Cambodian genocide is just a redirect. There are 390 books describing or mentioning exactly "Cambodian genocide" (and 772 just Cambodia and genocide). --HanzoHattori 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments in other parts. A genocide is, by definition, notable on its own. --Soman 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tribunal
I cleaned up this section because there were some typos, and also because the delays in setting up the tribunal had more to do with the heel-dragging of UN bureaucrats and the machinations of other nations (China, the US) that were reluctant to implement a tribunal at all, or wanted to twist it to their own political purposes. Read the book: Getting Away with Genocide.

Fall of the Khmer Rouge
"There was a mass defection in 1996, when around half the remaining soldiers (about 4,000) left."

This is syntactically ambiguous. Is 4000 the number of who remain soldiers who remain or the number of defections?

Proposed Link
Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a related articles on the Pulitzer site; http://www.pulitzercenter.org/showproject.cfm?id=20 concerning Khieu Samphan. Please let me know if I can post this link. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 01:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ENScroggs 19:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Helpful
If you need websites google Khmer Rouge and you get many more websites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.15.7.213 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

documentatry?
Can you recommend a good documentary that goes through the entire history of cambodia during this time, slightly before it, and until now? i'd love to learn more about it, but i dont have the attention span to read a book. please reply directly on my talk page.--Sonjaaa 05:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting and reorganizing
I would suggest the following the rejustments: 1) 'Khmer Rouge' is a term given by outsiders, not the actual name of the party. The usage of the term tend to refer to a specific time in Cambodian history, rather than an organizational structure. Much of what deals with situation in the country 1975-1979 could be shifted over to Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-1979) and make Khmer Rouge a redirect there. 2) Create separate articles for Communist Party of Kampuchea and Party of Democratic Kampuchea. --Soman 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Soman - good points. I'm also not pleased with the current organisation of coverage of the regime here at WP. However, it's been a controversial article (and topic) which has caused quite a few edit wars in the past. If you are interested in working together to rationalise and improve the coverage - this looks like a good place to discuss!
 * I agree that Communist Party article is a glaring omission at the moment. Currently we have a short article on Democratic Kampuchea - categorized and described only as a Nation. I believe it should be a disambiguation page leading to the State, the Regime or movement or party and probably the national Anthem at the time as well. We also have the history of Cambodia series article, which fits neatly into the rest of the history series but misses a lot as well. Then we have this article (with the wrong flag) and not enough information. Then there is Indochina Communist Party which is currently a redirect to the Vietnamese Communist Party - a bit of nationalistic POV if ever I saw some. I'm ready to come up with a plan - seek consensus and fix this mess. How much work are you willing to take on? Paxse 08:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on all the issues concerned, but as a first step I would be willing to shift over material to a separate Communist Party of Kampuchea article and including material from this article. --Soman 08:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another set-up for division of material could be:

--Soman 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I've created a temp page for an article on CPK at User:Soman/CPK-temp. In short there have been similar problems with differentiating between Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the general history of the Soviet Union. --Soman 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC) And a similar temp page for PDK, at User:Soman/PDK-temp‎. Please feel free to help out in developing these articles. --Soman 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-1979) as main article on the history of the country during this period
 * Khmer Rouge dealing with the term KR, explaining the name, the origin of the name and how the name has been used. Short article with links to other relevant articles.
 * Communist Party of Kampuchea, history of the party, organizational structure, ideological orientation
 * Party of Democratic Kampuchea, considered by the party itself as a new party, although clearly a continuation of CPK.
 * Democratic Kampuchea, on the state, its structure, decision-making process, flag, anthem. Not only 1975-1979, but also concerning the period in the 1980s when DK held the UN seat.
 * National Army of Democratic Kampuchea would also need a separate article. NADK is not an alias of CPK or KR, it was the armed forces of the DK state PDK. --Soman 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)'

Wow! that's extremely organised and a very good idea - heading over to check out your drafts. Paxse 21:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC) And now, a temp has for Khmer Rouge has been created as User:Soman/KR-temp. --Soman 12:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge article should NOT be merged with the "Cambodia under Pol Pot" article because people think completely different things when they hear both these statements. The phrase "Khmer Rouge" is ingrained into our culture. Even though it may not be entirely politically correct, it is still the well known statement that everyone knows. Its like how "Eskimos" do not like that name, but prefer "inuits" That doesnt mean that we should get rid of an eskimo article and replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.215.102 (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Our culture' meaning ? Who are we in this case? The Togolese? The Papuans? The core reason behind the proposal to merge is that after the CPK, PDK, NADK, etc. articles were created, there was a body of text which doesn't really fit into any existing article than the history chapter of 1975-1979. --Soman 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous post that the articles shouldn´t be merged, as the "Khmer Rouge" refers to the political movement, which later became the governing power in the DRC during the "Pol Pot period", and the period refers to a series of events that are also subjected to other influences than only the Khmer Rouge. Merging these articles would distract the attention from the early days of the CCP and the movement within the KR and divert it to the external politics of the KR during and after the years of their government. It´s like Hitler and WWII: You can´t just mix it up, it´s not the same thingit should be differentiated for the sake of historical correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armitage78 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rejected letter and Radio islam as sources
I have removed this statement which cites a more than 25 years old rejected letter located on Radio Islam's websote. Not a reliable source. If objecting, please explain.Ultramarine 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Radio Islam is not the source but rather the host site for the source which is historian Michael Vickery. And FWIW Radio Islam is no less valid as a repository source than Oliver Kamm's blog is as a source which you have vindicated in your editing practices- or are you an anti-arab racist perhaps? The letter is one of a number of letters from historians of Cambodia, including those of Ben Kiernan, that were rejected for publication by The Wall Street Journal at the same time. The Cambodia Genocide Project has collected many of these letters in their archives. The Wall Street Journal has held a controversial position on Cambodia, especially for it's criticism of the North Vietnamese Invasion in 1978 even though Khmer atrocities were peaking, and its alleged laxness regarding U.S. support for Pol Pot following the fall of the Khmer Rouge- thus it has drawn the ire of several prominent Cambodian historians. So rejection is not the issue. Neither is the 25 year old age of the letter since it concerns the media coverage during "the intial revolutionary phase"- the chronological period of April 1975 to the end of 1976 which is the period under discusssion. Varied media reports asserted that for this time period 1.2 million had been killed or died (Boston Globe), 1 millions slaughtered (Robert Moss, NY Times), loss of life of 2 million (Christian Science Monitor), 1.2 million (Barron and Paul). First, none of these accounts are based on careful field study and analysis, they are conjectures or typically distortions of conjectures. Second, if you actually use historical retrospect with appropriate attention to chronological details you will realize that these accounts are totally untenable. If 1.7 millions abnormal (executions, starvations, etc.) deaths resulted from the regime throughout the period of 1975-1979 is it really plausible to suggest that 1.2 million died during the initial revolutionary period? If you would care to do some reading, The Cambodia Genocide Project depicts the opposite. For example Kiernan notes that "even in the southwest, as we saw in chapter 5, the 1977 death toll was high. In the Northwest, it probably reached the tens of thousands in Region 5 alone. Looking back at 1975-76, the checkered performance of the Northwest Zone administration now seemed relatively benign, depsite the massive, pressing problems it had faced. Perhaps fourty thousand people had perished throughout the Zone in 1976, mostly from starvation, while violence seemed to be abating. But in 1977, the toll exceeded one hundred thousand, as massacres escalated to the highest levels ever." (Kiernan- The Pol Pot Regine, 246) In other words, yea there was significant violence in 1976-76 but the death toll pales in comparison to the way it picked up in 1977 and 1978, partcularly when the Eastern Zone (with its attachments to Viet Nam) rebelled and something of a civil war broke out in the latter half of 77 and into 78. Kiernan moreover references "Reports of the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, p.234 above, Nayan Chanda, "Cambodia: When The Killing Had to Stop", added "Most observers agree that the worst excesses of the reign of terror are over." So there you have have just a hint of the serious material on the topic. It can't be taken seriously that estimates of 1.2 million, etc. for the intial revolutionary phases were correct at the time they were made (by whatever method was concocted to arrive at them) and that the latter half of 1977-78 need only account for 500,000 unnatural deaths- quite the opposite. BernardL 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your personal theories (including original synthesis and conclusions) are not interesting, you have to cite reliable sources. You seem to think that letter was rejected due to some conspiracy. Far more likely it was rejected for the usual reasons, it was simply bad. Do you have any reliable sources backing up any of your claims? Ultramarine 09:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note also that in 1984 Michael Vickery estimated 740,800 excess deaths in his book Cambodia 1975-1982, far more than Chomsky's probable thousands, so it is not appropriate to cite an earlier rejected letter.Ultramarine 09:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I do not understand why Chomsky's 30 years old article should be discussed in this article, obviously there have been much research after this regarding the Khmer Rouge. If the purpose is primarily to discuss criticisms of Chomsky or to discuss his propaganda model, then there are other articles for this purpose. If insisting that this article should discuss his propaganda model, then we must also include all the criticisms mentioned in the propaganda model article, not just Chomsky&supporters.Ultramarine 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Nemda
In the last 24 hours has reverted this article 4 times back to this version. I've reported the user to WP:AN/3RR, but figured I'd create a discussion section in regards to his edits since there doesn't seem to be any mention of Nemda's edits besides the edit summaries left by those reverting back. I don't really know anything about the Khmer Rouge and only have the article on my watch list because I followed a vandal to this page some time ago. So feel free to discuss amongst yourself or ignore the addition of this section as you see fit. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I also didn't revert Nemda's last revert, so if you don't like the version Nemda put up and no one hasn't done so already, someone may wish to revert Nemda's revert. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nemda's edits
I just learned that even Khmer Rouge have supporters on the Internet. This page should be semi-protected until he goes away. --HanzoHattori 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection won't work since the account is established and I doubt 4 reverts in 24 hours qualifies for full protection. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters.Ultramarine 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Meswiss
If you look at the Khmer Rouge ideology, you will quickly notice that it has little to do with communism, rather it is an extreme form of "Green" party and politics. I believe that this should be noted, as avoid a similar masacre in some other part of the world, where "Green" politicians continue their hatred talk against all modern forms of civilization.

Whoever said this is an idiot and needs to be shot, buried, dug up and shot again. DeusExMachina 01:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

again...
I would appreciate more comments on my 'splitting and reorganizing' proposal above. Essentially, the idea is to remove the current mish-mash, and separate the following features in separate articles: --Soman 10:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Term
 * Political party
 * Armed forces
 * State
 * Period in Cambodian history
 * I'm now proceeding, copy-pasting the three temp pages into three separate articles. --Soman 19:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of information seem to have been lost. Where is the information about the number of deaths that was in this article earlier? Ultramarine 20:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is which material should be where. Perhaps the best alternative would be to create a separate Genocide in Cambodia article. --Soman 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete until there is such an article.Ultramarine 20:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I tried to initiate discussion on this two months back, only User:Paxse responded in any way. The question remains: The location of this article is 'Khmer Rouge'. Determining what material should be here must be based on the simple question: What is 'Khmer Rouge'? (a party? a state? a period in Cambodian history? a movement? a guerrilla?) The older article is inconstistent on this, it is presented in the intro as a political party but further into it there it becomes a general history of the country in a certain period. Since there are various different concepts afloat here (CPK, PDK, NADK, DK, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.) but proposal is to limit the scope of this article into the most strictest sense, namely that 'Khmer Rouge' is a term and the article explains the historical backdrop of the usage of the term.


 * This is not an issue of deletions, all material of previous versions is stored in the history of the article. However, I think it is necessary to discuss the delimitations of the article material here, and in which way other articles can be created. I have written three temp page, and I'm willing to contribute where to others, but I cannot do all that work alone. --Soman 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of interesting sourced material was lost. That it exists in a previous version in the history could be used to justify any deletion. If you do not have time just now, then please do not delete the material.Ultramarine 21:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, my present version is by no means complete. Most of all it would require some sort of source on when the term was coined, and approximately at what point it was introduced into English usage. However, the main point remains. I do maintain that my version is an improvement, because it is built around a clear delimitation of what the article should contain. Thus I have copypasted the temp page here, both to encourage further discussion as well as clarify my own positions on which delimitation to be used. Again, all removed material is of course availible, and can be used for other articles. I'm leaning towards creating a separate genocide article, but there are both pros and cons with creating a separate article and with using the material removed here to flesh up the 'Cambodia under Pol Pot' article. --Soman 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The term "genocide" could probably be disputed since they killed political opponents. "Democide" or "persecutions" would be better. Regardless, until you may create such an article, the material is lost. The organizational problmes you cite is minor compared to the absence of this sourced info.Ultramarine 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaving the issue of where removed materials should be placed, what do you think should be the delimitation of the Khmer Rouge article? --Soman 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for any movement, in priniciple its whole history. Here is a suggestion. Remove the material you have duplicated in other articles, and give links to thoes article, but leave the other material, like that about the killings in this artcle.Ultramarine 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a different conception than mine. It treat it, in my version, as a term. I find it difficult to have an article on KR as a movement, as the usage is in flux (i.e. the term is applied to CPK, PDK, NADK, DK, etc.). The problem with leaving those passages would be that the article then would be synomyous to 'genocide/democide in Cambodia. --Soman 22:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The correct term is "Cambodian genocide". I proposed it already long time ago. As for the term "democide", the very guy who coined-up this word titled the page on his website "Cambodian genocide and mass murder", too (including "pure genocide of minorities"). --HanzoHattori 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Soman, sorry I didn't notice your first post - 'net was playing up for a couple of days and I've only been on intermittently. The drafts look excellent and you've done great work to bring some initial order to the chaos. Ultramarine, glad to see you're interested in KR coverage too - we need more interested editors and there was a large round of apathy back in May when Soman first proposed reorganising wikipedia coverage of the KR. Now let's work out what we want to say with this article and get this baby up to GA status! My 2 cents - the term KR is poorly defined, very poorly understood and yet very very well known. I think there are two broad options:

Option 1 'Pure encyclopedic treatment' a short article explaining how the term came about and was used with links to the longer and correctly titled articles like Cambodian Genocide, Democratic Kampuchea, Communist Party of Kampuchea etc. Short but thorough articles on each of the various short lived political manifestations of shifting alliances in Cambodia - FUNK, GRUNK, SPUNK, PUNK etc - perhaps with a succession box to explain the links and how and when they formed. This seems to be Soman's idea and it's a damn fine one and appropriate to the project.

Option 2 'Popular encyclopedia treatment' this would cater more to the casual reader who has only a vague idea of what the KR were and wants to know more without being overwhelmed in FUNK/GRUNK/SKUNK type detail. It would probably contain bits of each of the detailed articles in option one but with a more general treatment. It would be thorough enough to give the reader a crash course on the KR but not all the detail to really understand what went on. It would probably be fairly heavy on killing fields type stuff. This seems to be more Ultramarine's idea (correct me if I got it wrong) and it fits nicely with the treatment of a lot of other topics on wikipedia, which seems to me to be more a popular encyclopedia than a pure one (Pokemon articles anyone?).

I think we need to decide which option is the best and then work on it together - my heart says pure encyclopedia is the best but this will probably mean a lot of arguments and reverts with those looking for a longer more general treatment of the KR. Incidentally, the history of the KR is still being written and studied in Cambodia every single day - what is generally accepted 'fact' in this area has changed rapidly and will continue to change. Documents are still coming to light as Ministries clean out their basements, survivors and eyewitnesses are being tracked down and interviewed - this is all very very recent history. Calling the DK regime 'genocidal' for example. Recent research among the Cham Muslim minority and their treatment under the KR and very recent research about highland minorities in Mondulkiri shows that the word genocide is spot on - no ifs or buts - they were purposely obliterated. Anyway, I'm really glad to see some interest in getting this stuff right. Paxse 13:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags for all occasions
I've reverted to the KR/DK flag instead of the CD picture/historical mix up version that was there previously. Finding out the source of the mix up took a little research. It's a complicated story and it has taken me a while to sort it out. By early '75 Phnom Penh was virtually the last area of the country not already under control of the KR. In the last hours before the KR arrived in the city a lot of desperate schemes were tried and generally went astray. One of these schemes was an attempted pre-surrender coup by a group of opportunists who perhaps thought that they could grab/hang onto some power and authority by taking over the town before the KR arrived and then handing over with a smile to Pol Pot's boys. This group raced around parts of town on a few trucks waving something similar to this flag as they went. In the film the bottom diagonal of the flag appears to be blue. Some sources have this group led by Lon Non the president's brother, others say it was a group of students. This group were photographed and even briefly filmed by some journalists - causing no end of confusion that persists to this day. François Ponchaud in his eyewitness account identifies them as the Monatio or Movement Nationale. Once the KR arrived in the part of town where the Monatio were hangin' they apparently took them away and executed the lot - so much for political opportunism. In 1998 the BBC used a similar flag to decorate an article about the surrender of Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea. Finally a year or so ago a UK record label released a CD called Songs Of The Khmer Rouge and printed on the CD itself was the damn flag above. This damn CD and their poorly sourced flag has created all sorts of confusion - though generally only among web denizens. The actual DK/KR flag, that flew over border posts, army barracks and even outside the UN for a dozen plus years remains: To prevent future confusion, keep an eye out for a brief article on the Monatio at a wikipedia near you. I need to go through some of my books and find refs. Interestingly, the king Father Norodom Sihanouk produced a film about the '75 mix up and the Monatio which was shown here in Phnom Penh in December last year. Sorry for such a long post for a flag revert :) Paxse 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In Revising the Past in Democratic Kampuchea the following is noted:
 * "Indeed, the September

1976 issue of the party's youth magazine, Yuvechon nung Yuvanearei padevat (Revolutionary Youths and Maidens), presumably printed before the arrest, opened with a 16-page article celebrating this very anniversary, noting:
 * ''From the moment of its creation on September 30, 195 1, the Communist Party

of Kampuchea led everyone, including revolutionary Cambodian youths, in the struggle against French imperialism. In 1954, imperialism was driven from Cambodian.''


 * Soon afterwards, however, a "special issue" of the party's official

journal, Tung Padevat (Revolutionary Flag), dated "September-October" went to press. The flyleaf depicted a Communist Party flag, as Yuvechon had done; but, whereas the caption under the flag in Yuvechon applauded the twenty-fifth anniversary of the CPK, the caption in Tung Padevat, identical in other respects, celebrated the party's sixteenth anniversary."


 * Thus if anyone has seen any of these two publications, the issue of what flag the party used could be settled. --Soman 15:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Soman, how are you?. No there really is no flag issue. The correct flag is so widely recognized (outside the internet) that it seems silly to have to reference it, it's like arguing about the UN flag. However, for doubters the DK constitution says:

''Article 16. The design and significance of the Kampuchean national flag are as follows: The background is red, with a yellow three-towered temple in the middle. The red background symbolises the revolutionary movement, the resolute and valiant struggle of the Kampuchean people for the liberation, defence, and construction of their country. The yellow temple symbolises the national traditions of the Kampuchean people, who are defending and building the country to make it ever more prosperous.''Paxse 16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine thank you. I know about the DK flag, and it is way better to use it here than the erroneus cross-flag. However, there was probably a separate party flag for the CPK. My guess, red with yellow hammer n sickle? --Soman 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm it's an interesting point. I found a scan of a cover of Tung Padewat Just five plain red flags - how boring. Now why would the DK flag have been suddenly created in '75? They controlled most of the country by then and had controlled some regions for years - it may have been around for some time. I wonder if the WPK had a flag? There are still some great examples of communist statuary in various provincial towns here - they are looking pretty battered but there are still some left. Paxse 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to Cambodian Civil War
Inserted see also Cambodian Civil War after line about uprising in 1968. 132.185.240.123 12:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed intro
I've removed the line about the Khmer Rouge not being considered communist. There was a citation needed and none had been provided. Not aware of any reputable source for that claim. Although the regime had few links to the outside world, Pol had travelled to communist China and drew direct inspiration from Maoist ideas, in the particular the Great Leap Forward. The Philp Short biography Mao is quoted as saying that not even he was bold enough to empty the towns. The party itself originated from European communist circles, from Pol's time in Paris. The Khmer Rouge described themselves in communist terms and they were described as communists by their enemies. They collectivised all means of production, abolished money and all aspects of capitalist society. Everyone had to work in communal enterprises and received a set ration. It's virtually identical to Lenin's War Communism during the Russian Civil War, 1918-22.

Read a lot in this area and I've never even once come across that a claim that the Khmer Rouge weren't communist.

Adamjamesbromley 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspect this may have been the work of banned user Jacob Peters who inserted this spurious claim. There's traces of his nonsense across all articles relating to 20th century communism. Any help much appreciated in cleaning it up. Adamjamesbromley 11:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that the Khmer Rouge is not communist is far from being "one man's opinion".

It is asserted in "A World to Win", the magazine of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, an organization of Maoist parties and organizations worldwide, that Pol Pot, by his own admission, was about something very different from revolutionary communism, and that the assertion that the Khmer Rouge were "guided by Maoism" (or as "Adamjamesbromley" puts it above, "drew direct inspiration from Maoist ideas"), is based upon "little but ignorance of the facts, or, in some cases, a deliberate effort to slander Maoism". As the article, "Condescending Saviours: What Went Wrong with the Pol Pot Regime", argues, the Khmer Rouge broke fundamentally with the Maoist notion of a two-stage revolution (starting with the "New Democratic Revolution" to end feudalism and develop productive capacities) to bring about the necessary material conditions upon which to build socialism and then communism. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge instead sought to wrench Cambodian society almost overnight straight into their own idealist and static vision of "communism", which actually drew more on capitalist modes of production (including the anti-Maoist capitalist policies pursued by Deng after Mao's death).

The article, located online here:, should be included as a link as evidence of a thorough Maoist refutation of the line of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, not on simple-minded subjective and sectarian grounds, but on a material basis which is fundamental to understanding what communism actually is and sets out to achieve. The Khmer Rouge were objectively not communist and could not have achieved (and did not achieve) anything like socialism or communism by pursuing the course that they did. 66.162.203.195 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)mundoqueganar

Removed 3 See Also
Thought the See Also section was getting overloaded and too diffuse. Made 3 changes:

1. Removed Battle of Kampot. It's a subsection of the Cambodian Civil War and there is now a link to that instead.

2. Lists of disasters, famines etc. This isn't even properly featured on this and I think the list itself borders on original research as it's a synthesis of lots of sources. Not sure if it really helps the article.

3. State terrorism - this is a link to a piece about Noam Chomsky's claims about US foreign policy, which then links back the Dk. All a bit pointless.. It's a confusing term with no commonly agreeed definition and is not used in the sources for the article. The Khmer Rouge practised was state-sponsored terror or political terror. Suggest that nebulous terms like this don't help keep an article objective, clear and NPOV.

Adamjamesbromley 11:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The name
Does anyone know why they are called Khmer Rouge and not Khmers Rouges (which is the proper French form in plural) in English? Aaker 22:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason is that in Khmer Rouge is functioning as a collective noun so you don't pluralise. Although it would still take a plural verb. That's guesswork on my part. But now that you mention it, I'll have to check to see what it's standard ususage is in the main sources. Adamjamesbromley 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question, but I've never seen it as Khmers Rouges anywhere previously, in any media mention whatsoever, only ever as Khmer Rouge. I can't imagine one person mistranslated it and it caught on in such a widespread fashion. Evixir (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy regarding education about the genocide
In this article, a claim is made to the effect that grade-schoolers are not taught about the genocide. Yet in the Wiki article devoted to the Killing Fields/genocide museum (an article linked to by this one), the following claim is also made: "Today, the museum is open to the public, and along with the Choeung Ek Memorial (The Killing Fields), is included as a point of interest for those visiting Cambodia. Despite the disturbing images it contains, the museum is visited by large parties of Cambodian school children." Is this an error, or is the latter claim meant to imply that the teachers simply take such field trips on their own initiative, aside from what might or might not be officially required? C d h 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Choeung Ek isn't exactly frequented by Cambodia's youth. Until most recently there had been no mention of any type of the events which took place in the 1970s (many focus on the period from 1975 to 1979, which is the period of reign of power the Khmer Rouge. It would erroneous to believe that the influence of the KR is limited to this period, as it had been visible in numerous provinces between and after this period). There were several political reasons for it, which I won't go into here. The generations raised after the KR are far more interested in the modern gagetry than they are in what happened 30 years ago. There are, of course, exceptions. Teachers are expected to strictly follow the national curriculum which, as I said before, until most recently didn't include a section on the Khmer Rouge. It is unlikely that the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) -- which still largely consists of defectors who came back to Cambodia on the Vietnamese armor -- would frown upon teachers' efforts to get their students to Choeung Ek and talk about what had happened, it is the fact the teachers themselves lack motivation to go out of their way to teach their students. Many of them blame their apathy on the low salaries, but the fact of the matter is that there is no culture of intellectual curiosity in Cambodia in the ranks of teachers which rubs off of their students. For this reason, most visitors one will see on any given day at Choeung Ek will be foreign tourists. There is a wealth of similar sites across Cambodia which I barely ever see visited by local people, and tourists don't get around to them as most of them are either off the beaten track or don't feature in travel books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.102.180 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am here in Cambodia now, and I read in one of the dailies that the schools will soon start to teach about the KR in high schools, but they felt that teaching it any younger wouldn't have the desired effect. keithrezKeithrez (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"possibly a brother of the nationalist Son Ngoc Thanh"
verification, please? i was under the impression that Son Ngoc Minh adopted that name to cash in on the popularity of of Son Ngoc. I will try to find my source and clarify later. 71.198.243.55 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC) "First [the Vietnamese communists] recruited a former Buddhist lay preacher, calling himself Son Ngoc Minh, to serve as President of a newly-formed Cambodian People's Liberation Committee (CPLC) in Battambang. Minh had been born in a Khmer district of southern Vietnam of mixed Khmer-Vietnamese parentage, which meant he was the nearest the Vietnamese had to an authentic Khmer revolutionary. According to French intelligence, his real name was Pham Van Hua. The nom de guerre was intended to capitalise on the popularity of Sihanouk's banished rival, Son Ngoc Thanh, then still languishing in exile in France." from page 39 of Pol Pot: anatomy of a nightmare 2004 by Philip Short. I will remove the line in the article about the two men being brothers. Mang 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger
I've tried to address the issue of the delimitation of this article before. Right now the entry reads: "The Khmer Rouge (Khmer: ខ្មែរក្រហម) was the ruling political party of Cambodia—which it renamed the Democratic Kampuchea—from 1975 to 1979. The term "Khmer Rouge," meaning "Red Khmer" in French, was coined by Cambodian head of state Norodom Sihanouk and was later adopted in English speakers. It was used to refer to a succession of Communist parties in Cambodia which evolved into the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) and later the Party of Democratic Kampuchea. The organization was also known as the Khmer Communist Party and the National Army of Democratic Kampuchea." At the same time there are separate articles for separate entities: etc.
 * Democratic Kampuchea
 * Communist Party of Kampuchea
 * Party of Democratic Kampuchea
 * National Army of Democratic Kampuchea
 * Communist Youth League of Kampuchea
 * Tung Padevat, other publications
 * Khmer Rouge Tribunal

So the element that refers to KR as a 'political party' is already covered in other article. It would not be good to make this article an redirect to CPK, as the term is somewhat ambigious (and also includes PDK, NADK, CYLK, etc.). If the material relating to the pre-1975 history shifted to CPK article is removed, post-1979 history is dealt with in DK, PDK and NADK articles, and material relating to the trial dealt with in article on the tribunal, then what would remain is essentially parallel to the article Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-1979). My suggestion would be to merge the two articles, preferably under the name Khmer Rouge period (1975-1979). --Soman 12:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for intro to the article at this point would be would be: "Khmer Rouge period refers to the period in the history of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 when the country was ruled by the Communist Party of Kampuchea (nick-named Khmer Rouge) led by Pol Pot. The official name of the country during this period was Democratic Kampuchea. The period saw the death of between 850,000 to 3 million people, through execution, starvation and forced labor. The Khmer Rouge swept into power at the end of the Second Indochina War, and conflict with pro-Soviet neighbor and former ally Vietnam led to the downfall of Democratic Kampuchea government and the Khmer Rouge, who regrouped along the Thai-Cambodia border." --Soman 12:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Another option, if the article should not be on the historical period, would be to revive my older proposal of delimitating the article to the term Khmer Rouge, with appropriate linking to CPK, PDK, DK, NADK, KRT, etc.. See User:Soman/KR-temp. --Soman 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many articles about overlapping areas. The Communist Party of Kampuchea ought to be merged with the Khmer Rouge article. The Party of Democratic Kampuchea could be a subsection. Although it was a nickname, the Khmer Rouge is the most widely used name for the Cambodian communists, so perhaps that should be the umbrella term. I agree also that Cambodia Under Pol Pot replicates content in the Khmer Rouge and the Pol Pot article. There ought to be a workable way of reducing duplication and confusing entries. Adamjamesbromley 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a very simple approach to this, namely that Wikipedia has an educating function. imho, the usage of 'umbrella terms' do work in an opposite direction. Already, in Western popular understanding the Cambodian communists appear as a mystical, almost alien, entity. The wikipedia coverage should counter that notion, and clarify that this was a political movement with its own history, dynamics and internal contradictions. I personally feel that KR is to vague to identify a single organizational entity (the term does, as stated before, not differ between CPK, PDK, NADK, RAK, Prachaeon Party, etc.). It could be argued that KR should redirect to CPK, but the opposite would be clearly incorrect and misleading. --Soman 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Wikipedia should have thagt educating function. But then if for example someone with no knowledge wanted to know about the Cambodian communists, they would probably use Khmer Rouge as the principle search term, in the same that Bolshevik was the probably the most common term for Russian communists. But rather coming up with original research as the way of defining this, is there a way of referring to reliable sources and using their definitions and then merging the artitcles accordingly? Adamjamesbromley 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that whats great with wikilinks and redirects, namely that someone googling for KR can easily be guided along with either redirects or clear disclaimer in the intro. If KR and CPK are merged (which is not my primary proposal, though) then a person googling 'Khmer Rouge' would easily find the article and also find "The Communist Party of Kampuchea was a communist party in Cambodia. Its followers were generally known as Khmer Rouge (Red Khmers)." in the intro, with further explanation on the name in the a separate subsection. I think that it important to counter the notion that there was a 'Khmer Rouge Party' (which has been a widespread idea on wiki so far), and clarify that KR is a label given by its outsiders. --Soman 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly support some merging and rationalising of the articles in this area. Also I wonder if some of the confusion stems from the CPK's own obsessive secrecy? The way it only called itself Angka. That probably contributes to the mystical/alien qualities that have been assigned it, that you mention. Even though I've a bit on this subject, the intense paranoia is something else. Almost like a organisation suffering from the full delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic. Anyway slightly OT, but still that may be the reason that odd notions like a Khmer Rouge party are floating round. Adamjamesbromley 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are completly right. It took more than two years after the 1975 victory until the name of the governing party was revealed to the public of Cambodia. This is certainly quite different from other socialist countries, and should be dealt with the text. --Soman 15:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party of Kampuchea should be merged into this article since Khmer Rouge is more recognizable name. After that merger, we could consider merging rest of the articles you suggested. -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of KR being a redirect. It should redirect to a blanket article on Cambodian Communism - thus neatly avoiding the CWP, CPK, DK trap. I really think this is how a conscientious encyclopedia would treat the topic - I also believe that the suggestion has only a snowball's chance here on wikipedia :) Paxse 12:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Communist Party of Kampuchea
Why is the name change to Communist Party of Kampuchea important and why was it kept secret? --84.20.17.84 10:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to write a 'name' section at the CPK article, explaining the evolution of names. In Communist parlance the names KPRP, WPK and CPK carry different significance. A 'revolutionary people's party' (like KPRP, or the early Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party) is a party committed to revolution and social change, but is not a confirmed Marxist-Leninist party. It is a party for the people in general, and less of a vanguard. This is a name used by communist groups in economically underdeveloped countries. A 'workers party' is a higher stage, it denotes that the party is a class party. The change of name to WPK put the Kampuchean party at the same level as the Vietnamese. Now, a communist party is considered to be a fully developed Marxist-Leninist vanguard party, and the name change denoted that the Kampuchean communists considered themselves as ideologically superior that the Vietnamese.
 * Why was this kept secret? The obsessive secrecy of the Khmer communists is sometimes difficult to explain. During the underground struggle, the communists had to limit the amount of information about their party given to their enemies, in order to avoid repression. They worked through other legal organizations, like Krom Pracheachon, to reach the masses. But why party was kept secret even after the 1975 victory, is somewhat beyond my understanding. Perhaps they wanted to keep the image that Sihanouk was still the national leader in 1975, waiting for the moment when their control over the country was consolidated until revealing their identity. --Soman 11:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khmer Rouge6.jpg
Image:Khmer Rouge6.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweatshops.
what are swaetshops? they are shops or factories where people work long hours in poor conditions for very low pay...and whos fault is it? Everyone who is in this world especially us in the More developed countries we buy the product we pay so much money for a pair of Gap jeans but the person who makes the jeans will get less than a 1/4 of what we paid...do you think this is right...are we not such a highly technologicaly developed world? So why are there still sweatshops...beacause many of us do not care...you who are reading this probaly care...take action make people more aware of sweatshops... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.61.199 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's great and all, but what exactly does this have to do with the Khmer Rouge specifically? Evixir (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

cambodian holocaust
two million people murdered by execution, starvation and forced labor? sounds like what hitler did. why are there no memorials and a national day of rememberance for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.18.95 (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are - in Cambodia. Paxse (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You got to rephrase. This sounds like some people allege Hitler did. Unlike for homicidial gassings, there is some real evidence for the genocide by the Khmer Rouge. --41.14.255.117 (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

pol pot on trial?
so the intro says "Pol Pot died April 15, 1998, having never been put on trial" but then down in the Fall of the Khmer Rouge section it says "Factional fighting in 1997 led to Pol Pot's trial and imprisonment by the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot died in April 1998." anybody more knowledgable than me care to straighten this out? --dan (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following answer comes from here.WTucker (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Have any of the Khmer Rouge senior leaders been tried before?

In 1979 there was a genocide trial in Phnom Penh known as the People’s Revolutionary Tribunal. That tribunal tried Ieng Sary and Pol Pot and found both guilty of the crime of genocide, but neither of them appeared in court nor served any sentence.

In 1996 the King granted a pardon to Ieng Sary for the sentence imposed when the People’s Revolutionary Tribunal tried him for genocide. It will be up to the judges to decide on the scope of this pardon. Even if he cannot be re-tried for genocide, there may be other charges that could be brought against him. This will depend on the evidence available.

In 1997 the Khmer Rouge themselves tried Pol Pot for crimes allegedly committed within the organisation after 1979. Pol Pot died in 1998, so he will not be tried posthumously in this court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartierlointain (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed book for Further Reading
I'd like to suggest Denise Affonço's memoir To The End Of Hell. It's a personal account from one woman of her family's struggle to survive under the Khmer Rouge. A remarkable and moving account. See http://www.reportagepress.com/books-name.php?book=19 for more details or the review in The Economist http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10281473. Please let me know if I can add it.Laura Keeling (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

conflict with other articles
In the Pol Pot article and the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum article it is stated that there are 12 known survivors. This article only claims 10.

216.80.0.34 (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Crimes against humanity" as section title is POV
We can't have this as a section title. It implies a whole lot of subjective things (that the concept of 'crimes against humanity' is legitimate, that the Khmer Rouge engaged in said crimes, that the section's body content refers to them etc). 'Crimes against humanity' is not used here as a legal term, but as a NPOV opinion of the actions of the Khmer Rouge, and is not even mentioned in the actual section that it titles. Additionally, the whole section is uncited, and seems out of place and unencyclopaedic. I think the whole section needs to be culled, and the useful content transfered to other sections. Failing that, at least a title change is absolutely nessecary. 219.77.142.86 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In international law, a crime against humanity is an act of persecution or any large scale atrocities against a body of people, and is the highest level of criminal offense.[1]

This was copied from the wiki page entitled "crimes against humanity." It IS a legal term, and is used as such in the article. The first usage of the term in history was used regarding the Armenian genocide, a genocide which is denied as vigorously as you are trying to deny the Cambodian genocide. That being said, the article does need to be rewritten, and properly sourced so that denialists like you can do a little reading. I'll see what I can do.72.78.10.225 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources Regarding Western Involvement/Support/Armament of Khmer Rouge and Sources in General
I've done some googling to find sources for the article for its improvement, specifically to debunk the western mythology concerning US and European involvement. I will list what I've found here. Feel free to peruse and improve the article based on what is contained on the following pages:

An article by award-winning journalist John Pilger on Montclair college website http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf

An article from UK newspaper The Guardian http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tom_fawthrop/2006/07/tom_fawthrop_on_ta_mok.html

An article written by John Pilger, found on an antiwar website (I'm not sure whether it originally appeared in print) http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=1807

Posting on Yale website by Ben Kiernan, Professor of History and Director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University (www.yale.edu/gsp), is the author of How Pol Pot Came to Power, and The Pol Pot Regime (Yale University Press, 2004 and 2002), and co-editor of The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2003). http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kIU1z0pmPikJ:www.yale.edu/cgp/KiernanCambodia30thAnniversaryEssay.doc+us+support+khmer+rouge&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

Report from Human Rights Watch, an independant observer NGO http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Cambodia.htm#TopOfPage

An article in the NYTimes, mentioning US involvement after 1979 in the ninth paragraph http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E0D6173EF936A35752C0A96F958260

A 1993 editorial from the National Catholic Reporter, an independant journalism organization http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-13773292.html

A website about Cambodia (credible?) with a "history" section which has sources listed at the bottom of the page. There is a passing reference to the US continuing to "...aid the non-Communist factions until 1991" (at the end of the sixth paragraph in the "history" section). "Non-communist" is what the west calls any dictatorship which we like... http://www.cambodian.com/history.asp

If I find more sources, I'll post them here.72.78.10.225 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge not Maoist
Why is there a persistent belief that the Khmer Rouge were Maoist?

The argument that the Khmer Rouge were Maoist just because they were allied with China or believed that the peasants were the true worker is fallacious. They are not allied with China because they believed in Maoism, they joined because Vietnam was allied with Russia, due to this the Khmer Rouge sided with China. It was a strategic move by Cambodia, not ideological.

Also in the statements of the Khmer Rouge, they believed they were more advanced than Chinese Communism. So how are they Maoists if they believe to be more advanced than it? Paracite (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

People believe that the Pol Pot regime was Maoist because they are told that over and over again, despite the fact that Maoists do not claim them and that Pol Pot himself claimed to be "beyond" Marxism-Leninism. Those who continue to call Pol Pot and the CPK Maoist in spite of these well-documented facts simply have swallowed whole anti-communism (in either its liberal or conservative variety) and can't be bothered with facts. mundoqueganar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.203.195 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because a group says that they aren't Maoist doesn't automatically mean that people should believe that. It's not like the National Socialists were actually socialist, but I digress. There are characteristics-the agrarian focus, hatred of urban dwelling intellectuals, a distinct nationalism that differs from the globalism of early communism, as well as much of the rhetoric-that are very similar to Maoist theory and practice. First it's absolutely immaterial if China (or whoever you're referring to when you say 'Maoists don't claim them') says they aren't Maoist, just as it is absolutely immaterial if protestants say that Catholics aren't Christian or if Shiites say that Sunnis aren't proper Muslims. It's not as though anyone Maoist has some sort of authority to say these people qualify but not these people over here. Second, even if Khmer Rogue claimed to be beyond all of that and that they weren't Maoist, that's fine, that doesn't make the label inaccurate. All that's being said is that their beliefs and practices have similar characteristics to what is called Maoist Communism. Classifications will always be somewhat arbitrary and often pointless, but here the label fits well enough. unsigned

Not sure who authored the above comment (stating with "Just because" and ending with "well enough"), but I think that it's fair to criticize my post by saying that it doesn't matter what some group or another claim counts as being a "real Maoist" or "real" anything else. It is more correct to work from objectively verifiable information and not what appears to be, or is, a subjective definition. That said, I disagree whole-heartedly with the attempts at charaterization of what Maoism is ("the agrarian focus, hatred of urban dwelling intellectuals, a distinct nationalism that differs from the globalism of early communism") by the unsigned poster. Maoism can be described objectively as a new synthesis of Marxism-Leninism, which means that in the real world it had certain charateristics. The first is that it saw the importance of building an alliance between the peasantry in the countryside and the urban proletariat as the backbone of the revolution. Compare this to Pol Pot's one-sided focus on a utopian, agrarian-based society. The second main feature of Maoism is the understanding that class struggle must continue under the dictatorship of the proletariat (or the socialist stage), which in China took many forms, most notably what was called the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Mao understood that the transformation of society couldn't take place in one fell swoop, and that the Communist Party in itself had the potential to become the new bourgeoisie (which is in fact what has happened after Mao's death). Pol Pot though you could just skip over socialism as a transitional stage and just violently force society into some agrarian, idyllic, "classless" society. He rejects the whole of Marxism-Leninism in this (while claiming he'd "moved beyond" it), though he called it "communism" because that was the currency of the day. So those two defining characteristics of Maoism do not apply to the KR.

Furthermore, unsigned's attempt to characterize Maoism as anti-intellectual and nationalistic do not square with either how Mao conceived of communism in China, nor how it developed before his death, and therefore shouldn't be considered a legitimate defense of describing the KR as Maoist. Anyone interested in delving into the subject further should read "Condescending Saviours: What Went Wrong with the Pol Pot Regime" a Maoist critique of the KR published in A World to Win, a publication of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, online at http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm. mundoqueganar

[What exactly is incorrect about my earlier classification of Maoism (I am the unsigned poster)? You don't see extreme nationalism in Maoist China? You don't see a romanticized picture of agrarian peasants and an heightened mistrust of urban dwelling intellectuals and the 'Western' culture they represented? You don't see an association that urban culture was more aligned with the aims of the KMT and thus an enemy to Communism? Mistrust of intellectuals existed in every incarnation of Communism, that's nothing different although it is odd to suggest that Mao did not share that mistrust. Some of these characteristics, especially the nationalism and mistrust of urban culture, may not have been heavily featured in Mao's theories, but so what? Mao himself said practice was far more important than theory (I cannot know the pear until I bite into the pear, which then informs my theories about the pear which informs practice in choosing future pears, and so on and on), and in practice Maoism played out much differently than in theory. Of course there was extreme nationalism in Maoist China, with Chinese cultural and ancestral identity being pushed as superior to all others. The number of speeches he gave about returning China to this ideal past he created sounds damn close to Mussolini who was obviously Mr. Nationalist. The appropriation of Tibet was founded entirely on an ideology that was pretty much identical to the movements to unify Germany and Italy in the 19th Century, returning to a past empire and unifying lands based on a cultural and ancestral identity. In terms of his agrarian focus and his feelings towards urban-dwelling entertainers, professionals and intellectuals, I think the number of such people who were either outright executed, starved to death in camps or who were forced to move to the country side and become farmers speaks for itself. I hardly see how you could possibly say that these things are not what Maoism became. Who cares if it's not mentioned in the Little Red Book, I'll take Mao at his word, fine let's judge Maoism by how it was practiced and not in how it was conceived of in theory. Again such general labels are always imperfect and often arbitrary. Yes there are significant differences between Mao's China and KR. KR was more nationalistic from the beginning and was much more explicit in its hatred of urban dwelling professionals and intellectuals. Again Maoism in practice had those characteristics, obviously to different degrees and with different styles, but similar enough that the label is not as bad as you seem to think it is. And I am talking about China during Mao, obviously the nationalism and the hatred of all culture that was not a certain conception of China, specifically the hatred against a perceived Western influence on Chinese urban culture, occurred a great deal more after Mao's death, but it was still there during his lifetime. The differences are actually less than the differences between Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy and yet not many people have a problem with calling National Socialism an incarnation of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brother number...
What does the brothers' numbers mean? Were them an official or an inofficial title? How much of this numbers did exist?--88.77.80.79 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC) in cambodian anybody you talk two who is older than you is a brother marion  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartierlointain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "pbs" :
 * CONTINUING UNREST. PBS. [[18 June], 1997 TRANSCRIPT]
 * CONTINUING UNREST. PBS. June 18, 1997 TRANSCRIPT

LinkRage!
I am in the mood to seriously prune those external links - enough already. Any objections, please post them here. I'm anticipating only a select few will remain unscathed. (mwuhahaha!) Paxse (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious Plagiarism
A very large part of the article, namely everything following the intro, is entirely plagiarized from the Library of Congress' Country Studies Program. Simply copy any random line in one of the sections, paste it to Google with quotation marks and you will see what I mean. I'll give the editors of this article a little while to fix it before I just come back here and strike most of this as a blatant violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The intro seems fine, unless it was taken from another source but much of the rest of it is a word for word duplicate. Seriously are people too lazy to even paraphrase?

Image copyright problem with File:Pol Pot2.jpg
The image File:Pol Pot2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro too long
The introduction is far too long. It should be a couple of paragraphs ideally. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page basically washed clean of the western involvement in the Khmer Rouge atrocities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.52.77 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible bias in the beginning of the article?
The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.

The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to socialism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[3] and were given leadership in torture and executions.[citation needed]

Is it just me or does this section seem to have a strong bias against nondemocratic goverments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.83.239 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me it's only facts and there's no dissing of non-democratic governments, except maybe the "brainwashed" part. Perhaps it is you that has a cultural indentation to view brain washing as a negative thing? Cumulus (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole section could do with rewriting, as it's not especially well-written, but it's fair to suggest that:


 * The Angkar wanted to eliminate all free-market activities, as they had a stated goal of eliminating money itself (ostensibly because money led to 'corruption')
 * It was also responsible for a severe repression of intellectuals, non-communists, royalists, and other real or imagined enemies (e.g, those it classified as having "Khmer bodies with Vietnamese minds")
 * It was responsible for the separation of families, as villages were reorganised into communal single-sex barracks (not sure about the 'parents tainted with capitalism' bit; probably more to do with trying to destroy traditional social ties and loyalties)
 * The remaining education system (such as it was) exclusively taught the Angkar's ideology. "Brainwashed to socialism" is a bit over-the-top as well as being ungrammatical, but there's a grain of truth there.


 * The article just needs a fair bit of editing; not sure it's overly biased though.Svejk74 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Condescending saviours" weblink
To quote from the intro (of that website, not this article): "(...) the fact is that they had to deal with the horror that the US created. If anyone should be on trial for genocide in Southeast Asia, it should be the US ruling class. The charges of genocide the rulers of the US want to press against former CPK leaders are an attempt to reverse right and wrong."

That doesn't strike me as very neutral, personally. --134.76.184.101 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)