Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ruy Lopez

CJKs comments on Ruy's response
"Today is July 9th. CJK has been a user since June 28th.  So he has been a user for 11 days and already he is doing RFC's against people he doesn't like.  He says he uses an IP address before that - but that goes back to June 12th.  So he hasn't even been editing for a month and he is filing RFC's."


 * The only question I have is why it has not been done against Ruy before.

"OK, so in CJK's mind the New York Times regularly accepts (and publishes) communist propaganda, doesn't have a clue what is going on and so forth."


 * I didn't reject the article BECAUSE the NY Times accepts propaganda, I rejected it because of its date. CJK 9 July 2005.

"I should add CJK is as "right-wing" as I am "left-wing".


 * If that was true I would be a fascist.

"I am incredulous about him saying "no research". I have travelled to libraries miles away to get information to put into Wikipedia.  CJK cites the Khmer Rouge page over and over in his complaint.  Not only have I read and cited web pages, but books like "After the Cataclysm" (which I own), "Cambodia 1975-1992", as well as books by Ben Kiernan and David Chandler, plus the US country study of it (although that is on the web in addition to being a book)."


 * Well, if you have done so, you certainly did not cite any books or webpages in the KR talk, despite repeated requests.

" OK, so I reply "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'.". This is an article that talks about the food aid program in Cambodia.  So CJK replies to this "In response to Ruy: I think the U.S. gave food aid to the Lon Nol Army, but not civilians.".  OK, this is where CJK becomes absurd on several levels.  If we recall the original comment by CJK, it was "I have never heard of this 'food aid' from ANYWHERE ELSE"."


 * Maybe I should have clarified. You are correct by saying I had not seen the article before. However, I meant that the food aid article was written in 1975 when, as I said in talk, this was not because of the US bombings but rather because the Cambodian government did not control the countryside where the food was grown.


 * As for compromises, this is concerning only the articles mentioned.

"The thing I was insistent on was that it be mentioned that the Geneva agreements said that Vietnam should have elections and be unified."


 * No, you said the war was FOUGHT to unite Vietnam by the Geneva terms by Communist forces.

"He said elections never took place and I said they had - in 1976 Vietnam had national elections to the Quoc Hoi. I also noted there have been elections since then, and that in the last elections, 51 seats in the Quoc Hoi were won by people not in the communist party."


 * I did say elections took place, just not fair ones. The rest is unsourced by you, and they do not concern 1976.

"I had no desire to do a research project on the Geneva agreement, the 1976 Vietnamese elections in Vietnam and so forth for this dumb edit war so I gave up."


 * You didn't have to do a research project, I gave links.

"I know a lot more about Asian politics than CJK - he keeps getting surprised by things like the 1976 elections in Vietnam, the US food aid to Cambodia in 1975, and so forth. Adam Carr usually knows what he's talking about when he reverts."


 * Since when am I "surprised" by the elections? I knew they existed, just that they weren't free.

"This is just one document - there are many orders, memos and so forth which discuss the policy of shooting civilian refugees, as well as witness accounts, American and Korean. Anyhow, Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. "


 * This is the one document that you gave, so you have no right to say SOME of it is true and SOME of it is lies.

"We have pictures of UK troops torturing Iraqi civilians (no pictures of UK troops killing Iraqi civilians though, just reports)."


 * Seriously? Where are they?

“ CJK:Ruy was apparently making totally unsupported changes that say the Khmer Rouge weren’t even in power committing genocide, but they were part of a “coalition”. I debunked this revision with sources.”

It is absurd to say this is unsupported, it is supported even in a US Army funded report on Cambodia.”


 * You didn't cite it despite being asked, and have not even cited it now (through a link).

"I don't know why he keeps saying this. I said they evacuated the cities due to a food shortage.  That is the major reason for the evacuation, and has always been what I said the major reason was.  He's the one who always brings up the fear of US bombing."


 * No, you said specifically that Cambodian farmers swelled the cities because of US bombings, and had to be evacuated to prevent food shortages. See KR Talk.

"I should say in conclusion that I gave up on the Vietnam War page to CJK despite disproving his assertion that were no elections."


 * Um, you did not disprove it. See my links.

CJK 10 July 2005.

Further Conclusions
Although Ruy took a great deal of time and effort to work on his response, while my comments are relatively short, blunt, and to the point, it still boils down to the basic facts. And the facts are this: Ruy did not cite enough sources, but continued to revert. Indeed his only stated sources were the US airforce document, and the two NY Times sources, and if you don't believe me see for yourself I will repeat (again) that the NY Times source was NOT rejected out of hand due to its left wing slant and the response I gave would have been virtualy the same--does anyone seriously believe the NY Times would have ran the same story about how great the KR were today? They would not. And again, the story was written before the genocide took place, so it is irrelevant.

For Vietnamese elections Ruy says he just gave up because he had "proven me wrong " and didn't want to have "a dumb edit war". This is totally untrue, I gave the last comment in discussion which were links to two websites. Ruy can say again and again that the the other parties other than the communist party can run, but that doesn't mean its fact, particularly when Vietnam's own constitution says the communist party is the only legitimate party--see the links if you don't believe me.

As for the document, this was the only one Ruy gave. Sure he said their were plenty of other documents that indicated that KPA soldiers were not infiltrating, but he gave none. Again, I do not argue that strafings took place among civilians. This entire arguement that the US military killed refugees for no reason is all the more absurd by the fact that they could have used the valueble air sorties against military targets. So when Ruy gives a document that contradicts his own statement, I am somewhat suspicious.

As for Ruy believing I am a sock-puppet, I again challenge anyone to run sock-puppet checks on me, as I have absolutely nothing to hide. As for me being a 12-day user, more if you count my IP, all I have to say is that Wikipedia does not have a policy saying new users are incapable of reasonable logic. Maybe I should have waited 2 days, two weeks, two months, two years, but it would not change the facts of the matter any different.

For my comment of him being a "radical" I define it as Socialism, Communism, or Anarchism. Or as he would say the "workers movement" or other friendly terms used by the left to describe these things. Excusing murder will also deem you a radical in my eyes. To be truthful, I think the radical left makes more sense than the moderate left, as at least they are being honest about their intentions.

And for Iraq I think Ruy is drawing misguided comparisons. The random acts of murder in US/UK militaries are just that--random. No officer came out and said "OK guys, go shoot some kid playing soccer". With terrorists, however, that is exactly what high leadership wants. No Al-Qaeda personnel got a little bored in London and decided to bomb a bus--it was deliberate by high leadership. CJK 11 July 2005.