Talk:Killing Fields/Archive 1

NPOV
Sentences like this is why the NPOV tag has been added, I don't have time at the moment, but will come back and help out if nothing happens in a few days


 * Communist governments are notorious for being very "poor", and for failing miserably to make any economic progress.

- FrancisTyers 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Communist Khmer Rouge
I was surprised the word "communist" did not appear anywhere in the article so I added it. What would cause someone to talk about the Cambodian Killing Fields at length without even once mentioning that the Khmer Rouge were communists? Hmmmm....


 * Perhaps because the Killing Fields were devoted to murder rather than economics. Mark1 06:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a sadly short article for many reasons, mainly systemic bias. Clearly a fuller discussion of the Khmer Rouge is warranted in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark,
 * Communism does not just have to do with economics, it's also an ideology. One of the most important precepts of Communism and Marxist/Lenninist thought involves thought control.  The Khmer Rouge followed Maoist ideology, as well as recieved direct support from China, (and Mao was very, very good at thought control, i.e. China's "Cultural Revolution.")  History has shown us that, more often than not, Communist governments have used very overt means to achieve this objective, (not always.)  The founding of the Tuol Sleng prison to silence, political opposition, the supposed "bourgeois intellectuals," and other unfortunate dissidents, is one example of this precipice being carried out.  Most of these inmates were systematically interrogated and murdered, along with other victims from the general population and buried in the mass graves now notoriously known as "The Killing Fields."  However, I personally feel Communism can not be 100% blamed for the severity of the Khmer Rouge's actions and much of the blame lies with the individuals themselves.  Because of this aspect, I believe labeling the Khmer Rouge as a Communist organization is correct.
 * I believe a more complete discussion of the Khmer Rouge as Dhartung has suggested should be limited here as there is a page dedicated to the Khmer Rouge already and the link is provided already.--Joshsattler 15:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
what is going on here on this page may i ask?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.5.130 (talk • contribs)
 * By here, do you mean wikipedia, or this specific page? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

terrorism
I've removed the tag that said this page was part of project terrorism. I don't see any obvious link between the two. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's how it's linked with terrorism; The Khmer Rouge itself was a terrorist group installed in Cambodia by Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong, when Ho split the Indochinese Communist Party in three in 1951. DanTD 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Um. What definition of terrorism are you using?  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say the basic definition applies here, just as it has in other communist wars. DanTD 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What 'basic definition'? There are many different ways to define terrorism, so it would help if you could express your understanding of terrorism in your own words.  Personally, I tend to think that "A terrorist act is an act of violence, aimed at instilling fear in a civilian population with the intent of coercing a government into making concessions".  Individuals and organisations that perform terrorist acts are terrorists.  Terrorism is a tactic, like Moneterism and Propaganda, not a social structure, like Capitalism or Dictatorship.  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

of one family's experience in the killing fields and could be used as a source. -- Beckie 129.123.156.38 20:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Page title
Per Naming conventions, shouldn't the title of this article be Killing field? Even if the definite article is required, it should be in sentence case: The killing fields.--Srleffler 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin
I am wondering what is the origin of the use of the term "The Killing Fields" that it has become specific to this incident.--Nasher 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

From all sources I've read, Dith Pran himself coined it during the time he was escaping the country and came across these areas - Mtwebster (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Line
The Khmer Rouge was a communist political organization. The Khmer Rouge page--as well as literally hundreds of independently published books, articles and documentaries--identifies the Khmer Rouge as a communist organization. The name "Khmer Rouge" means "Red Khmer". Their flag is solid red, with a Soviet-style hammer and sickle in the middle. The cadres all called each other "Comrade".

All of the above is beyond dispute. It is reality. The Khmer Rouge was a communist political organization. That is akin to refusing to use the word "fascist" in the Auschwitz article to state the political orientation of the Nazi party, which perpetrated the atrocities.

I understand that the article is not about communism as a political system, nor should it be. I understand that the article is not intended to serve as a condemnation of any political system, nor should it be.

It is, however, a horrifying and revolting piece of fucking apologist propaganda to refuse to allow a singular, NPOV, factual use of the word "communist" to be used to describe a basic FACT about the Khmer Rouge regime.

Rarely do I get physically angry when viewing propaganda attempts on Wikipedia. This is one such case.

Anyone attempting to remove the single use of the word "communist" used as a descriptor of the Khmer Rouge regime in the lede will be reverted. I will not budge. Not ever. I will take this as far and as wide as it fucking needs to go, and I promise you that no one will support your bald-faced attempt to push a POV propaganda agenda that pisses in the face of millions of murdered innocents. Mark my words, you will deeply, deeply regret this if you keep it up. Leave it alone. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, I have also redacted the revolting propaganda of the IP editor below. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-

You made your point, but maybe a bit too flowery for academic standards. Most of the time, you don't need to indict someone to crimes of slavery and murder to make them make a minor change in wording.

regarding the [who?] tag
"In the Khmer Rouge's Standing Committee, four members were of Chinese ancestry, two Vietnamese, and two Khmers. Some observers argue that this mixed composition makes it difficult to argue that there was an intent to kill off minorities." The Khmer Rouge obviously intended to kill everyone with an education even though the leaders were highly educated themselves or everyone with contact to the outside world even though they did have, so I don't really believe you can say that they didn't intend to kill off people with similar ancestry just because of that. 80.221.46.78 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Who was responsible
Who perpetrated these crimes? The article states: "The soldiers who carried out the executions were mostly young men or women from peasant families." I am not asking about the leadership that issued these orders, but rather the mid-to-low level leaders and *specifically* the actual executioners. The article implies that it was ordinary citizens who pulled the triggers. Other things I've read have said the same thing. It seems to me that this is a classic example of class warfare. It was the middle class (educated, city-dwellers) who were murdered by the lower-class (peasants, farm-workers). Is this the case? It really seems to me that there is a LOT of blame to go around. It seems to me that this nation is trying to avoid all discussion of what they did to one another (aside from some *very belated* and *very weak* efforts to prosecute some of the high-level-murderers). It seems to me that there are a lot of people walking around who pulled a lot of triggers. Perhaps I need to dig deeper into Wikipedia to find out the current status of 'prosecutions'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recently read an article about the "silence" that currently exists in Cambodia about the genocide. Yes, there is "a lot of blame to go around," but it is difficult for current civilians because many are suspicious of each other.  A lot of the Cambodians who are alive grew up during the regime and became guards and interrogators ("the young men or women from peasant families") but there are also those who survived by not participating in such things.  I can understand your strong reaction, but you must take into account the situation now.  It is certainly a sore subject in Cambodia, and those alive do not want to stir up harsh feelings in a country that is trying to heal.


 * Concerning the prosecutions of the high-ranking officials, I do not have much to say on that topic except that you are right in saying "there are a lot of people walking around who pulled a lot of triggers." But as you say "a lot," I would say "a good amount of people currently alive."  Do you now see the difficulty Cambodia society faces?


 * You also ask "it was the middle class (educated, city-dwellers) who were murdered by the lower-class (peasants, farm-workers).  Is this the case?"  But it was not at all a class dispute.  The regime targeted educated people (among others) regardless of their class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.162.89 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky
Author Noam Chomsky does mention the Cambodia genocide in "Manufacturing Consent". He is however downplaying it. When I was seeing it, I just thought "Holocaust denial?". Nevertheless I think it is worth mentioning in the article. --41.151.118.203 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not worth mentioning in the article. Some authors (like Paul Bogdanor, Sophal Ear, or Bruce Sharp), have written detailed articles about Chomsky's alleged obfuscations on Cambodia.  In fact, I agree with them; Chomsky has plenty to answer for.  But he is a living person who has said many things in his life, and singling him out personally for a critique here is unwarranted.  Many left-wing academics said similar things at the time, but the issue is not one many would feel comfortable talking about here on Wikipedia as it could lead to all sorts of POV problems.  We couldn't just attack Chomsky and not allow his supporters to defend him.  Wikipedia has to strive to be neutral to all points of view, and these sorts of disputes are not really appropriate here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Unspecific references
"Analysis of 20,000 mass grave sites by the DC-Cam Mapping Program and Yale University indicate at least 1,386,734 victims of execution.[1][2]"

Reference [1] links to the home page of the Yale Cambodian Genocide Program, from which it is not clear how to find the quoted figure or discussion thereof. Reference [2] links to a non-existent page at the Documentation Center of Cambodia, from whose home page it is likewise difficult to locate discussion of the quoted figure.

Such a specific figure surely merits specific links to sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.153.182 (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khmer Rouge Killing Fields. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403182720/http://www.cambodia.gov.kh/krt/english/ to http://www.cambodia.gov.kh/krt/english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

external links section addition
An anonymous editor (or editors) is repeatedly adding an external link to a Guardian article about Pol Pot, and failing to discuss it on this Talk page. This is not an acceptable use of the External Links section: the EL section is not a collection of any news articles that bear some connection with an article's topic. If the newspaper article has useful information, the editor should incorporate that in the Wikipedia article and cite the Guardian article. Or, the editor could post the link on this talk page and let others know what in the Guardian article could helpful be added, and ask others to do so. It would be great if the anonymous person would create an account, as this would make communication easier (their IP address keeps changing, so using their talk pages is pointless). Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Missing Citations
This article is missing citations for critical pieces of information. 68.161.203.131 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)