Talk:Cambodian genocide/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. DrKiernan (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

– Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, if you search any of these on Google, you will see that everyone capitalizes except Wikipedia! Charles Essie (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, they plainly don't. I looked up the Greek and Cambodian cases. Reliable sources that seemingly have the "g" capitalized are almost invariably just headings, using it in an overall title-case context. In normal sentence case, capitalized "g" is quite rare. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I also saw plenty of reliable sources that did capitalize them, plus, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME does not apply in matters of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting. Charles Essie (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "WP:COMMONNAME" (the relevant guideline is WP:MOSCAPS, in case you haven't found it yet). It has everything to do with finding proper evidence on whether or not reliable sources out there are treating these items as proper nouns, rather than mere descriptive phrases. You'll have to offer more than your blanket assertions to convince us that a majority of reliable sources does that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The definiation of proper noun according to the Online Dictionary is; a noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. These genocides certainly qualify as "unique events" which makes them proper nouns. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. No, that is not how the English language works. Try again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you're going to have to give a more specific explanation than that. Charles Essie (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you are going to have to provide example Google Books search results so we can look at them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. the relevant guideline is not WP:MOSCAPS the MOS guidelines are not a naming conventions (guidelines the explain and ehhance the article title policy, but a guideline that covers the internal content of an article. The relevant naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) -- PBS (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you have to about [1], or [2]? Charles Essie (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Google n-grams can't distinguish between usage in headings (where capitalization is merely due to title-casing and hence insignificant) and usage in running text under normal sentence-case rules. I noticed that somebody (was it Dicklyon?) in the previously quoted n-gram links had cleverly added another word to the phrase (e.g. "Armenian genocide is") to increase the likelihood that the hits would be normal text. Once you do that, the lowercase versions appear to be ahead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That's beside the point, we're dealing with a title, not two words in a sentence, with a title you capitalize proper nouns, not doing so looks unprofessional. Charles Essie (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh for chrissake. Proper nouns are those words that are capitalized independently of whether they are in a title, and it is a long-standing Wikipedia rule that we capitalize only those words, i.e. we apply normal sentence case in our article names. For this reason, the only relevant evidence for our purposes is what reliable sources do in normal sentence case contexts, i.e. in running text. I sincerely hope I won't have to explain this to you yet another time, because my patience with you is running thin now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wrote the article, the sources do not use uppercase for genocide other than section titles, or book titles, as FPAS says, quite simply the majority of sources do not capitalize this at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Cambodian Genocide only It is a proper name. It is also more common according to Google Ngram since at least mid-1990s. [3] --Երևանցի talk 01:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The n-grams tool is not great for this, as it count titles and headings, too, which are usually in title case. But you can constrain it various ways to count things that are likely in sentence context, e.g. as in this search. Please try some and say if you don't agree that it's most often NOT treated as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. If you suggest "do a Google search, you'll see I'm right," you should probably verify that you are in fact right first. GBooks search , when ignoring the capitalization in titles (per Future Perfect / Dickylon / rules of English), shows 3 instances of "Cambodian genocide" in running text and 0 instances of "Cambodian Genocide." I did not check the other 2 proposed moves but the fact that the nominator clearly didn't research the first very well doesn't make inclined to closely check the others. SnowFire (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support These describe particular historical events, not all genocides that took place in Cambodia, Syria, or Greece, or those genocides that were of a Cambodian, Syrian, or Greek character. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Genocide in Cambodia is disputed

Whether or not what happened in Cambodia between 1975-1979 is disputed, and the article should be modified to reflect this. 

Fleksnes2 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no doubt that millions died under the Khmer Rouge rule during that time period. What specifically do you object to? 10stone5 (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's true that the genocide label is disputed, both by fringe communist deniers and legitimate scholars. What happened in Cambodia was comparable to, if proportionally more lethal than, similar repression carried out in other communist states. The absurd "auto-genocide" label was merely an attempt by the Vietnamese and their Western apologists to associate the Khmer Rouge (which they had previously supported) with fascism/Nazism as opposed to communism. Religions were persecuted out of fanatical atheism; the Chinese did not suffer disproportionately except insofar as they were disproportionately wealthy. If anything, Vietnam's mass expulsion of its Chinese community was a far more blatant example of ethnic cleansing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

length

Why is this article so short? The Armenian, Jewish and Rwandan Genocide articles are all very detailed pages. A lot of info from the Khmer Rouge page should be included in the Cambodian Genocide page.Oxr033 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Cited Dates in Article Do Not Conform to Content

The dates cited throughout this article and other information does not seem to make sense (eg: genocide committed between 1975-1979 but later in article a book published in 1973 about Cambodian atrocities is cited). The article is poorly written, difficult to follow and poorly researched. Important topic, needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.7.5 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the only mention of 1973 is when a member of the US diplomatic service raised concerns about atrocities being carried out. Or am I missing something? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nazi drivel

"The KR goal of purifying the people is similar to the goals of German nazism, in attempting to create a "master race"; as one KR leader said, it was the "purification of the populace"." Now that statement is pretty nonsense to say it mildly. Does that really stand in the source? Then we should remove the source, since it doesn't have a factual basis. --2003:5B:E547:1569:4B5:1295:4ADC:4882 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Short article?

Considering the scale of the crime why is this article so short? The Rwandan Genocide wiki page is several times larger and this is unusual considering both the facts that the genocide occurred over a longer period of time and involved many more victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.141.234 (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Was this a genocide?

Should we call this a genocide?

Philip Short's Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare states:

That Nuon Chea Ieng Sary, Khieu Samphân and other Khmer Rouge leaders committed crimes is beyond dispute. But if they are to be put on trial it should be for crimes against humanity, of which they are guilty and for which they may legitimately be convicted, not for genocide, of which they are innocent. The Khmers Rouges did not set out to exterminate a 'national, ethnic, racial, or religious group', whether their own, the Vietnamese, the Chams or any other. They conspired to enslave a people. (446)

Squandermania (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The key words in that quote are "may...be convicted" and "did not set out to..." You're talking apples and oranges -- "what really happened" versus "what can get a conviction in a court". In a courtroom, intent is an important element of a crime and proof of intent is often required in order to get a conviction. In the real world, however, all that really matters is the result, which was genocide. Short was talking about the legalities, this article is about the realities. Take a look at these Google Scholar results to see just how many scholars refer to this as "genocide". Also, take a look at the definition of "genocide". It doesn't only have the narrow legal sense in which Short uses it (i.e. "to exterminate..."). The most common usage of "genocide" is simply "the deliberate killing of people who belong to a particular racial, political, or cultural group".[4][5][6]. The Khmer Rouge targeted all three: racial groups (Cham, Vietnamese, Chinese, Kola, etc), cultural groups (Khmer people that were upper- and middle-class, educated, artisans, French-speaking, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) and political groups (pretty much every group not directly affiliated with the Khmer Rouge). We have an article Genocide definitions. The Cambodian situation fits the definitions of 1948, 1959, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1984, etc.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 17:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent Category addition

I've removed the recent problematic addition of the "Category:Persecution by atheists" from this article as inappropriate and unsupported by reliable sources. The category misleads our readers by implying that persecution was inflicted because the persecutors were atheists (people who do not believe in gods), which is nonsensical. Atheism has no goal, creed or mission; it is merely the absence of belief in deities. While reliable sources say there has been persecution by totalitarian dictators and regimes, and communist regimes, and anti-clerical movements, and some of these even maintained a stance of "state atheism", there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals. We already have more appropriate and accurate categories for this kind of persecution: Category:Anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union, Category:Anti-clericalism, Category:Persecution by communists, etc. Articles asserting causal persecution by a lack of belief have been deleted in the past. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Kampuchea was officially an atheist state, Religion was also banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism was extensive, The Category:Persecution by atheists fit well here, Democratic Kampuchea was a state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism. The Category:Persecution by atheists it is includes articles of violence or persecution carried out by atheists or atheist goverments against adherents of religions. Prevent people from freedom of worship and to impose on them that they are atheists or non-religious, burning and closing of churches and temples is persecuted (In the case of the oppressed was an atheist), then, is persecuted by the atheists.--Jobas (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that the religious were persecuted, and you are correct that Cambodia assumed a position of state atheism. But you are confusing the persecution conducted by communists as "persecution by atheists", which is nonsensical. That makes as much sense as adding "Category: Persecution by people with black hair". According to the cited sources in this article, the persecution was propagated by the communists upon the religious (and religious institutions) because regime didn't want to compete with religions for influence over the populace. Atheism is just the absence of belief in gods; there is no "persecution" component to it. The persecution comes from the communist regime and from totalitarian dictators. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The persecution was led by people who identified themselves as atheists, They were athiest outspoken, Their actions were an attempt to remove religions of these communities through the policy of persecuting the religions and their followers and by followers of imposing a policy of atheism, forceful tactics to promote atheism, through the so-called atheistic countries. If not athiest then persecuted by whom? Christians?.--Jobas (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The persecution, according to the sources, were by the polity in control at the time. The people may have identified themselves as atheists, and males, and left-handed, and fond of bird-watching, but the persecution (and also the establishment of state-sponsored stance of atheism) was a product of the communist or fascist government. See the difference? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The source cited they imposing a policy of atheism in not peacful way, and the "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", and forceful tactics to promote atheism. These acts it called persecution that done by self identified atheists, They ban on religion and they killed and tortured followers of different religions. And they tried to impose atheism in various ways on the population? What you called killing people for their faith and harassment them and an attempt to impose atheism officially in all ways? Persecuted? and by whom?--Jobas (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see that quotation anywhere in this article. Which paragraph is it in, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
impose atheism in various ways on the population from preventing worship and closing churches and torture people for practice it.? Were are taling about State atheism as states and goverments who run official policy of anti-clericalism and Anti-religious and its aim to and promoting state atheism.
Wessinger, Catherine (2000). Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases. Syracuse University Press. p. 282. ISBN 9780815628095. Democratic Kampuchea was officially an atheist state, and the persecution of religion by the Khmer Rouge was matched in severity only by the persecution of religion in the communist states of Albania and North Korea, so there were not any direct historical continuities of Buddhism into the Democratic Kampuchea era.--Jobas (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Which paragraph, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The Khmer Rouge, under its policy of state atheism,[12] actively persecuted Buddhists during their reign from 1975 to 1979.[13] Religion was also banned, and the repression of adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism was extensive. And according to Kiernan, the "fiercest extermination campaign was directed against the ethnic Cham Muslim minority.
Try to read WP:COMMONSENSE.--Jobas (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I read WP:COMMONSENSE a long time ago. Has it changed since then?
I agree that the Khmer Rouge actively persecuted religious people, and also ethnically different people. I also agree that they established state atheism. But adding a category of "Persecuted by atheists" is not only a violation of WP:SYNTH, but it is also nonsensical. Are you still unclear as to why? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Really? Why not adding Persecuted by atheists, When the Khmer Rouge were state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism.--Jobas (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Because being atheists (i.e.; not believing in gods) has nothing to do with persecution. If you add a "persecuted by atheists" category, you will mislead our readers into thinking they persecuted people because they are atheists, which is ridiculous. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Has nothing to do? They persecuted people because they are believers, the Khmer Rouge were state atheism governed by atheists and that officially promoted atheism and they persecuted people with religions because they are believers, they tried to force on them atheism, by baning religions and other act of persecution. The Khmer Rouge under its policy of state atheism, they banned religions and persecuted Buddiest and Muslim and Christians, How being atheists (i.e.; not believing in gods) has nothing to do with persecution.--Jobas (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Now you are repeating yourself, without addressing the issue at hand. Do you have a reliable source which says "persecuted by atheists"? Or are you still talking about persecution of the religious by communists who happen to also be atheists? I don't see anything in the atheism article which says part of being an atheist is that you must burn churches or force people to suddenly not believe. I'll hold off on replying until you've provided a reliable source for this article which conveys specifically "persecuted by atheists", rather than persecuted by communists or totalitarian regimes.Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
here: Wessinger, Catherine (2000). Millennialism, Persecution, and Violence: Historical Cases. Syracuse University Press. p. 282. ISBN 9780815628095. Democratic Kampuchea was officially an atheist state, and the persecution of religion by the Khmer Rouge was matched in severity only by the persecution of religion in the communist states of Albania and North Korea, so there were not any direct historical continuities of Buddhism into the Democratic Kampuchea era.--Jobas (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Xeno, between this and your stunning admission elsewhere that you were completely unaware of the connection between the word "slave" and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, I'm really starting to lose my respect for you. Guess what—I'm an atheist, too! However, as an atheist, I have no problem admitting that the extraordinarily effective destruction of the Buddhist spiritual center of Cambodian society by the Khmer Rouge was a clear case of persecution by atheists. To argue that "there is no causal relationship between atheism and persecution of religious individuals" is to argue against the usefulness of the category itself. If that is how you feel, you are free to nominate it for deletion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Howdy, TTAC. I think you were reading a little too much into the discussion about slaves. Gently prodding an editor, who may be prone to more personal opinion than established fact, to start providing sources is a little different than a "stunning admission elsewhere that you were completely unaware of the connection". I'm sorry if you are losing respect; I'll try to earn it back. As for the category itself, I'm arriving at the same conclusion: it doesn't appear to be a very useful category, and may well end up on the chopping block. Decimation of Buddhists by a communist regime is persecution by the Khmer Rouge establishing communist control, not atheists, even if every last person responsible disbelieved in deities. The "Buddhist spiritual center of Cambodia", to use your description, as well as religions in general, was a threat to the political subjugation and control of the populace that the KR tried to establish and maintain, none of which has to do with atheism. God bless, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Some quick, light reading for you in: 50 Great Myths About Atheism by Russell Blackford and Udo Schüklenk (2013); check out Myth #27 (about "atheists" being responsible for all the ills in Cambodia, USSR, Mao's China, etc). You're probably already aware, since you are an atheist, but just in case... Oh, and if you are going to join this conversation in earnest, perhaps you could point me to the reliable sources I've been asking for above? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Russell Blackford is a writer, philosopher, and critic, he it is not a historian and scholar.
According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity", (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages".
In Julian Baggini's book Atheism A Very Short Introduction, the author notes that "One of the most serious charges laid against atheism is that it is responsible for some of the worst horrors of the 20th century, including the Nazi concentration camps and Stalin's gulags". (source: Julian Baggini; Atheism a Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 85).
Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge also instigated a purge of religion during the Cambodian Genocide, when all religious practices were forbidden and Buddhist monasteries were closed. (source: Encyclopædia Britannica Online - Cambodia History; accessed 10 November 2013),
Albania under Enver Hoxha became, in 1967, the first formally declared atheist state (source: Majeska, George P. (1976). "Religion and Atheism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, Review." The Slavic and East European Journal. 20(2). pp. 204–206.), Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania. and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." (source: Elsie, R. (2000). A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture. New York: NYU Press. p. 18. ISBN 0-8147-2214-8.)
Atheist and anti-religious policies in the Soviet Union included numerous legislative acts, the outlawing of religious instruction in the schools, and the emergence of the League of Militant Atheis to intensify the persecution. (source: Richard Pipes; Russia under the Bolshevik Regime; The Harvill Press; 1994; pp. 339–340)
After Mao, the Chinese Communist Party remains an atheist organization, and regulates, but does not completely forbid, the practice of religion in mainland China. (source: Rowan Callick; Party Time – Who Runs China and How; Black Inc; 2013; p.112), (source: "International Religious Freedom Report 2007 — China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)". U.S.Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-02.)
You still keep ignore sources, There been persecution that done by an atheist states, and atheist leaders. So you like or not that dose not changed facts of Persecution by atheist states and leaders.--Jobas (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Jobas. Blackford is a philosopher and scholar, and so is Schüklenk (Professor of Philosophy at Queen's University), and so is Julian Baggini, whom you just quoted. And atheism is a subject of philosophy. Coincidence? Have you located a reliable source which says people were "Persecuted by atheists", rather than at the hands of a communist regime or a totalitarian state? I don't see it in any of the sources you just mentioned. I read your quote by Baggini, and I kept reading. Do you see where he said, "...some anti-atheist assumptions are just that--assumptions and not facts. [...] This was not atheist fascism but an expressly Catholic one. [...] The fact that the Soviet Union was an avowedly atheist state doesn't mean that atheism can be blamed for the mass murders committed by the communist dictator Joseph Stalin. He goes on to say that it isn't atheism or even original Marxism to blame, but "Soviet communism, with its active oppression of religion" to blame. And "In fact, even though it was officially atheist, it is not even true to say that the Soviet Union and the Church always had an antagonistic relationship. Stalin permitted the formation of the Moscow Patriarchate, a central body for the Russian Orthodox Church." What do you suppose he means? Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Atheists don't close churches, arrest priests or outlaw religion -- blame for that oppression is on the dictators and the totalitarian states. The category template is misleading. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Blackford is a philosopher still not historian. but that is not the issue.
The name of category is Persecuted by atheists, It mean to include act of Persecution that done by atheist or self identified atheists, or atheist goverment and states, this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me, because it is not the place for that argue. The Category is about acts of Persecution that done by atheists, which I already provided reliable source about the Persecution acts, and the self identified atheists leaders as Pol Pot and Enver Hoxha and that these dictators and the ″totalitarian″ states were officaly atheist state (so how the Category don't fit here)‎. According to the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that during the twentieth century, atheists in Western societies became more active and even militant and he wrote: "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity, (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.543), and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages, "The agressive speard of atheism in the Soviet Union alarmed many German christians, "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong. All religions, all ideologies, all civilizations display embarrassing blots on their pages, "In 1923 the Soviet machine denounced the celebrating of Easter and Christmas. Two years later the Soviet Government founded the League of Militant Atheists in order to intensfiy its crusade ... This was one of the most vigorous persecutions of Christians in Europe since the heday of the Roman Empire. The Leagu Militant Atheists was an atheistic and antireligious organization, The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." the leagu played an important rule in killing and imprisoned the priest. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into temples of atheism.
The Russian Orthodox Church, for centuries the strongest of all Orthodox Churches, was suppressed by Russia's atheists (source: Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494).
In 1999, the Communist Party launched a three-year drive to promote atheism in Tibet, saying intensifying propaganda on atheism is "especially important for Tibet because atheism plays an extremely important role in promoting economic construction, social advancement and socialist spiritual civilization in the region". (source: China announces "civilizing" atheism drive in Tibet; BBC; January 12, 1999)
The Christian solidarity derived from mobilisation against domestic political opponents was reinforced by the more distant threat constituted by the militantly atheist Soviet Union. (The Cambridge History Of Christianity, Vol. 9 p. 172)
I dont see in this source the word totalitarian, but i'm see atheists, don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source.--Jobas (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Blackford is a philosopher and scholar, and so is Schüklenk (Professor of Philosophy at Queen's University), and so is Julian Baggini, whom you just quoted. And atheism is a subject of philosophy. Coincidence? Did you have a point?
this not important what is the defination of Atheism for you or me --Jobas
It may not be important to you, but it is important for our readers. When you add the category "Persecution by atheists", you are telling our readers that there is persecution because of atheism, which is not true and is not reliably sourced. Hopefully you can understand that. Please let me know if you do not. A category which says "Persecution by XXX" means the persecution is because the subject is XXX. A category which says "Persecution of XXX" means the persecution happened because the subject is XXX. If you intended the category to mean something else, you will need to reword it.
Your Blainey quotes say three things. (1) Blainey says some ruthless leaders (he doesn't name who) in the Second World War were also atheist or secularist, and that is very likely, since there are billions of secularists and atheists in the world. (2) Blainey also says that Pol Pot and Mao were atheist and they also committed atrocities, which I think is also true. (3) Blainey says all religions, all ideologies, all civilizations can be the source of bad things, which is very probably true — but atheism isn't a "religion" or an "ideology" or a "civilization". Blainey does not say anyone was "persecuted by atheists". In fact, what Blainey was actually saying is that not all war and violence is promoted by Christianity, and he gives examples of non-Christians (Mao, Pol Pot) to support his point. You would know this if you read the sentence just before the ones you quoted on page 543.
Perhaps this quote about people like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, would be helpful to your understanding: "Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." The blame for that lies with "dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism", or totalitarianism, etc. (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Pgs 315-316)
don't till me now that Geoffrey Blainey is not reliable source --Jobas
Anybody can be a reliable source, and any source can be deemed non-reliable or inaccurate, depending on the specific content being sourced. You'll have to be specific about what you would like to source to Blainey in a Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Xeno, you are demanding an impossibly high standard of evidence, similar to claiming "oppression by communists" is an invalid category unless the sources proffered explicitly describe avowedly communist dictatorships as practicing the same "true communism" envisioned by Marx (and further aver that Marx's ideas inevitably require gulag). Your argument culminates in the reductio ad absurdum where we declare all ideologies irrelevant and focus instead on the one common denominator: "Oppression by dictatorship." Ideas like secularism, atheism, and even communism may not inherently require mass killing in theory, but communist governments are likely to discover the necessity of violence and coercion if they are faced with a sufficiently large and powerful propertied elite (of the sort that exists in every society)—and the extreme brutality employed by secular governments such as, say, the Ba'th in Syria might be at least partially explained by the difficulty of upholding secular rule in a cultural environment of deeply ingrained and profoundly conservative religiosity. I repeat that it is bad form to render a category effectively invisible by purging it from articles to which it is (justifiably) applied, and that it is incumbent upon you to nominate this category for deletion or drop the stick.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
What I, and Wikipedia, demand is any evidence at all, and if that is an "impossibly high standard" for you (and Jobas) to meet, then I suggest therein lies a very big clue. Further, my argument has nothing to do with ideologies, only about atheism, and misattribution to it under the guise of a category.
but communist governments are likely to discover the necessity of violence and coercion --TheTimesAreAChanging
Bingo. Now we are in the same page, and you've correctly identified the source of the oppression. As for removing articles which have been inappropriately placed in this (mostly nonsensical) category, that would be a logical and necessary prelude to nominating the category for deletion (or alternatively, showing that the category actually has utility). Do you disagree? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
We are talking past one another, as all too often happens on Wikipedia. For this reason, it would be preferable to achieve consensus through the input of the broader community, preferably at "Categories for deletion." This is an admittedly complicated matter because, while all communists are atheists, not all atheists are communists. Atheism is a necessary precondition for the Khmer Rouge attempt to completely abolish all organized religion, but not a sufficient cause in and of itself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we're talking past each other as much as talking in two different directions. As I noted before, I am considering CfD, but I have no intention of launching it prematurely without first getting a solid handle on where & how it is being used and misused. You are very correct that this is a complicated matter, and even your observations about "all communists" and "all atheists" are not as absolute as you just stated, and there is significant nuance involved. "Religion" is a competing and incompatible entity where certain variants of communism are concerned, but "atheism" is merely a byproduct, and not a requirement of (and certainly not a cause of) any persecution under communism. Much of the confusion is apparently due to the term "state atheism", which is actually a completely different beast than actual atheism, and is more akin to a government policy of general anti-religion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This category "Persecution by atheists", not category "Persecution because of atheism", The category is about act of persecution committed by atheists noting more nothing less, dozen of source include your Richard Dawkins, cited that there been act of persecution committed by atheists, the category dosen't argue the reason of the persecution. But still the soruces show that the Atheist states as Soviet and ect try to establish atheism throughout society by force and persecution, and creating atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists to help the goverment to promoted atheism. So how an atheist state and atheist organizations as League of Militant Atheists who played role in persecution people of religion, and tried to force and promoted atheism dont fit under category "Persecution by atheists".
Even if it was in the name of a Communist ideology, but that ideology was explicitly atheistic? and who can deny that that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were influnced in their. Religious persecution by the Marxist–Leninist atheism which advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism?, So how "Persecution by atheists" don't fit here when they Persecuted people of regions and try to force on them atheism.
You asked that to show you source that there been acts of Persecution that done by atheists, I gave the source of Geoffrey Blainey, it was very clear, "the most ruthless leaders in the Second World War were atheists and secularists who were intensely hostile to both Judaism and Christianity" and "Later massive atrocities were committed in the East by those ardent atheists, Pol Pot and Mao Zedong″.
Well Richard Dawkins is not historian, Under the state atheism of the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism." (source: Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival, by Christopher Marsh, page 47. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.) and (source: Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History, by Dilip Hiro. Penguin, 2009.) which is an act of Persecution, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. (source: Statement of Principles and Policy on Atheistic Education in Soviet Russia, translation from Russian, Stephen Schmidt, S.J., transcribed P. Legrand, page 3). --Jobas (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
You appear to have duplicated your comment. See my comment above dated 12:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC). I look forward to your response. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Killing Fields article?

Should this article not be merged with the Killing Fields article since they're the same event? Plus, it seems the referencing and information in the Killing Fields article is better documented. 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:71CE:BE35:D686:51B9 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. Though that article is ostensibly only about particular sites, its content seems to overlap with this page. —ajf (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cambodian genocide. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of literature and media

User:Darkness Shines removed most of the items in the section 'in literature and media', with the ambiguous edit summary 'incited removed'. Going to revert, any discussion can happen below. Gabriel syme (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly is wrong with removing uncited content? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok you meant to say uncited in the summary. Give me a bit, I'll pull some sources. Gabriel syme (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
That should do it, thanks for not reverting. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Infonox

Is a pointless waste of space, given the genocide template is already there it just flatters everything up. Untill there is a consensus for it I shall be removing it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But the genocide templates serves a different purpose. That template is about genocides in general whereas the infobox added by the IP is about the Cambodian genocide in particular, and as such contains an image, timespan, estimates of deaths, etc., which I think will be useful to readers who are unaware about these high-level details. There are currently two editors in favor (me and the IP) and one against, so in my opinion there is a consensus. Uglemat (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote count, you need consensus to add disputed content, we shall see if others weigh in. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Massive revert by Darkness Shines

Ū Notifying recent editors: Darkness Shines, Grammarian3.14159265359, GreyGreenWhy, Hijiri88, Mztourist, KylieTastic, WilliamThweatt, Theduong, Kimyoda, GrafZahl, Alexb102072

Darkness Shines just reverted to a revision from 2015 (see diff). Darkness Shines did not explain anything beyond "what a mess". I find this behaviour shocking. Darkness Shines is essentially saying that the "502 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users" are so worthless that removing these contributions does not even merit comment. Uglemat (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I did comment, and yes those revisions are worthless given half are uncited, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Where did you comment? I do not see anything, beyond the worthless edit summary. Many of the revisions your removed were useful! Why can't you remove the pieces which are bad incrementally, and explain every removal? This is a cooperative enterprise. Uglemat (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Obviously, reverting my edits, which if I recall consisted of copyediting and tagging, as "unsourced" is ridiculous. Maybe reverting every other edit from the last three years would address my concerns, but this seems to be way out of line from a procedural standpoint, and should be undone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You neither commented nor explained your actions nor sought consensus before reverting almost three years worth of edits - to your own previous version, no less. I was preparing to revert you myself. "Given half are uncited" is a rather poor excuse for such actions. That means that at least half of what you erased was cited but you still felt it ok to summarily revert it without discussion? If you have problems with certain content, discuss it, fix it, or tag it so others can fix it; don't revert to a ~3-year-old version.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec)So my summary is worthless then? Yet all the uncited shite is grand? Feck off bud, if anything's worth saving, I'll save it Darkness Shines (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Darkness Shines: It's not clear from your indentation combined with your use of "(ec)" whether you mean the above to be a reply to me or someone else, but while I will not defend anyone's edits but my own (I actually agree with you that this article, at least as I found it, was pretty abysmal), if anything's worth saving, I'll save it is completely out of line with WP:OWN. Your version contains a much more glaring problem than the one I thought was abysmal -- it doesn't even have a section on the genocide itself; the description of the genocide in the lead is pieced together from various data that the body describes as "ideology" and "international reaction". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
RV then, and let the world know just how shite Wikipedia can be Darkness Shines (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • This does appear to be a bit over an over reaction considering Darkness Shines looks to have edited a dozen or more times in between without thinking is was a non-salvagable mess. Also the revert appears to have halfed the references so wasnt just the normal unsourced junk building up. I had only edited in passing, so not really in a possition to comment on the detail as not my area. I do agree with DS that some was uncited and should have been sourced or removed (the "State terror under the Khmer Rouge" section was particularly bad.), but it looks a bit heavy handed. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It's all crap, I would have tried saving some but others insists I delete the lot, that's life heh Darkness Shines (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You want me to keep going? This time tomorrow were back to 2015, and i will not be arsed to save any of that shite, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You may think these incremental removals are tedious, but it makes a huge difference, because it allows other editors to see what you are thinking. Now editors can browse through your changes and see for themselves if they agree. Thanks! Uglemat (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't care what others think, I know this article has been wrecked, and i will look in the history for anything salvageable, I would not hold our much hope mind Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Everything is not about you. Please respect the opinion of others. Uglemat (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Twice wrong in a few hours terribly sad really. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You reverted to 2015. Many people reacted negatively. Then you went into a cooperative mode as if to prove that you could, and then suddenly reverted again to 2015, missing the point entirely. I give up. This is a cultural problem. This kind of behavour must be curtailed. Uglemat (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Curtail me then, and where the fuck is the 'cultural' shite from? Look at the article, do you have any understanding of it? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

So I looked clueless come talk to me when you get it Darkness Shines (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A bunch of entrenched man-babies, is that what we want to be? Because that's how you are behaving towards your fellow editors. It is a shame that your disrespectful behavour is working so well for you. Uglemat (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Darkness Shines is obviously not bothering to even look at what the motherfuck they're reverting. Some of it's plain gibberish, and some of it is disputed—reverting "his death" to "committing suicide", for instance (the Pol Pot article goes into this, so we can't simply state it was suicide, even if the source cited says so). If Darkness Shines makes another revert or continues with the badly formatted personal attacks, they should be swiftly blocked. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree except that I see no reason to wait. I was going to try and edit but the situation here is totally out of control. An admin should remove DS from this article, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't edited this article much, but it was a bit of mess which is why I did a small copyedit. The lead probably did need rewriting/reverting, but undoing years of edits without discussion is definitely overboard. If there were to be a calm discussion on this, with a little bit of good faith and civility, I imagine everyone would agree on general changes pretty quickly. That's my take, since I was pinged. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism

Ideology played an important role in the genocide. Pol Pot was influenced by Marxism-Leninism, and wanted an entirely self-sufficient agrarian society that would be free of foreign influence ... Pol Pot's strong belief in an agrarian utopia stemmed from his experience in Cambodia's rural northeast, where—while the Khmer Rouge gained power—he developed an affinity for the agrarian self-sufficiency of the area's isolated tribes. Attempts to implement these goals (formed upon the observations of small, rural communes) into a larger society were key factors in the ensuing genocide. One Khmer Rouge leader said the killings were meant for the "purification of the populace". <- This is fairly explicit, Paul Siebert. The sources are in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In the future, when you revert, make sure you don't also break other things. You keep removing the link to Khmer nationalism, leaving a redlink instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The quote demonstrates that Pol Pot was influenced by Merxism-Leninism. However, that does not prove Marxism-Leninism was a motive. You recent change literally means that killings were motivated by Marxism-Leninism, or that Marxism-Leninism was a motive for killings. That bold statement does not follow from your quote or from other sources provided in the article. Moreover, I even did not find such source in literature at all. Whereas xenophobia or racism can be seen as an obvious motive for some crime, I didn't find any reputable source saying Marxism(Leninism) can be such a motive (and can be a motive at all). It may inspire some revolutionary leaders to do something, but it cannot be a direct motive. Please, provide a source that confirm your edit, otherwise I will remove these words is one week.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
So far, I was able to find just a couple sources that discuss crimes "motivated by Marxism...", and the sources available to me do that purely hypothetically (see, for example, Anthony M. Dillof Michigan Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 6, Survey of Books Related to the Law (May, 2000), pp. 1678-1703.)
I can explain the same using the following analogy. When Raskolnikov came to kill Alyona Ivanovna, his motive was money. His decision was strongly influenced by Neitschean ideas (strong personality, etc.), but would it be correct to claim that philosophy was his motive? Obviously, not, and I doubt mainstream sources can claim that. Similarly, no majority sources can claim the "motive" of Cambodian genocide was Marxism-Leninism (or Maoism). As I already explained, I am going to remove that statement unless some extraordinary event will happen and you find some mainstream source that openly supports your POV. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Its very clear that Marxism-Leninism which involves the elimination of classes, the destruction of class enemies and opponents of the revolution were a major component of Khmer Rouge policy that lead directly to the genocide. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It is very clear, and majority of authors agree with that, that Marxist regimes were not genocidal by their nature, and KR genocide stays apart from all other mass killings committed by Communist regimes. If M-L is a motive, it must work universally, which never happens. Even such a simple and straightforward phenomenon as the Holocaust is NOT seen as motivated by Nazism (just take a look at the infobox of that article). It is well known that elimination of Jews did not directly followed from the Nazi doctrine (by writing that, I mean that different scenarios were possible, including deportation of Jews outside of the Reich). And even if we assume KG genocide was inspired by M-L (which is true only partially), I saw no sources saying M-L was a "motive" for that genocide. Again, I don't have to prove the opposite, show me sources saying it M-L was a motive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the "It is very clear, and majority of authors agree with that, that Marxist regimes were not genocidal by their nature, and KR genocide stays apart from all other mass killings committed by Communist regimes". The Soviets and Chinese both carried out purges that amounted to genocide. When the Khmer Rouge started fighting the Chinese were in the throes of the Cultural Revolution eliminating class enemies and opponents of the regime, the Khmer Rouge just copied their playbook. While you may argue that it is overly simplistic to attribute the genocide to Marxism-Leninism, that is what provided the philosophical foundation to the Khmer Rouge ideology and its application in the Soviet Union and PRC was what they copied. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You may read "The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930-45" by Stephen Wheatcroft (Europe-Asia Studies, Dec., 1996, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996), pp. 1319-1353Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/152781). This is just one out of many sources on that subject. Other authors separate Asian genocides (Communist and non-Communist ones) into a separate category, which have more in common between each other than to the events in other states (Communist and non-Communist). And, most importantly, the very fact that some mass killing took place in some Communist state does not automatically mean the perpetrators were motivated by Marxism-Leninism. I would say the opposite: most historians provide country-specific and time-specific motives for each of those events, and usually draw little connection to M-L.
You should also keep in mind that USSR and China were very big countries, so the large (in absolute numbers) scale of mass killings was still incomparable with KG genocide in relative figures: even the largest case of human loss (Chinese Great Famine) lead to the death of less than 1% of Chinese population, whereas KR killed around a quarter of Cambodian population for a very short period of time: that has no analogy with any other event in any state lead by any revolutionary government.
Finally, when we speak about "motives" we mean the real motives that lead actual perpetrators. Racial hatred, revenge, xenophobia - all of that looks as a quite plausible motive. But it is hard to imagine M-L was a true motive: it would be easy to tell to an average Khmer peasant: "Go and kill that rich Chinese man", but such motivation as "bourgeois class must be eliminated" would require Khmer peasants to understand such abstract concepts as "class struggle" etc. I cannot imagine that was possible. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The scale isn't really relevant, we are talking about motives. The current motives in the Infobox are ridiculously over detailed, they should be: "racism/xenophobia, anti-religion, anti-intellectualism, ultranationalism and Marxism-Leninism" because Marxism-Leninism was the guiding philosophy of the Khmer Rouge and the elimination of class enemies was a key facet of that philosophy. You mentioned that Nazism doesn't feature in the Holocaust infobox which is also ridiculous because Nazism encompassed and legitimized the underlying racism and antisemitism into state sanctioned industrialised murder. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
There is more to the genocide than the Killing Fields. There is also, for example, the 1979 famine caused by the implementation of policies (collectivization of land, labor camps, resettlement, etc) that were inspired by Pol Pot's interpretation of Marxist-Leninist ideas and by the Great Leap Forward and that left about 2 million people starving (I am not aware of any death toll estimates, unsurprising given that disentangling deaths from murder, famine, and disease is likely impossible). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a big difference between "motivation" and "inspiration". "The former" is something (such as a need or desire) that causes a person to act. "Revenge" IS a motive ("this guy did something bad, he has to be punished"), "xenophobia" IS a motive ("I hate Jews, I want to kill them all"). "Motive" implies no mental work ("I want to do something, and I will do that"), and some perpetrators even cannot explain their motives logically.
In contrast, inspiration is the act of influencing or suggesting opinions. The leaders may be inspired by some theory (like Hitler or Pol Pot), or opportunistically use existing theoretical concepts to maintain a personal power (like Stalin), but in all cases it requires some serious mental efforts.
"Motives" must be simple, otherwise a crowd will not go after its leader. The people accept the slogans proposed by the leader when they are properly motivated. "To get rid of all Jews", or "to kill all Vietnamese and intellectuals" are the ideas that will be well accepted by people motivated by antisemitism or xenophobia, accordingly. However, "to build a classless society" is something that people would not accept easily, because it requires some minimal education ("we want to live better - to do that we need to eliminate social injustice - the roots of social injustice are in a class society - to eradicate it we need to build a classless society - that is why class struggle is required" - something like that). When people are educated at the level that allows understanding of that, they may start thinking independently, that may lead to a disagreement about the goals and methods, formation of several political fractions, etc. In other words, we cannot speak about "motives" anymore, we speak about inspiration.
In other words, "motives" is something that drives wide popular masses, whereas various sociological (like Marxism) or pseudosociological (Nazism) concepts inspire their leaders (or the most educated representatives). That is why "Nazism" is not listed among motives in The Holocaust infobox.
If there were an "Inspired by" section in the infobox, I would agree to put Marxism-Leninism there, although Maoism would be more accurate. However, to put M-L to the "Motives" section is totally incorrect, it is a piece of original research, and I am going to remove it unless you demonstrate that majority of reliable sources explicitly agree that M-L was a motive. What about 20th of March? If no sources will be presented by that date, "Marxism-Leninism" will be removed from the "Motives" section. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
And, the scale IS relevant. A death by starvation as a result of unintentionally organized famine that killed 1 out of 200 people in a country and an intentional murder of 1 person out of 5 are two different events. They are TOTALLY different, and that is why Cambodian genocide is an outstanding event that has no analogy with any other mass killing/mass mortality event in any Communist state. And that is directly relevant to the discussion of motives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
So your three main arguments are: wikilawyering with a dictionary, your fanciful interpretations of what people can comprehend (constituting original research) and that a third of the genocide doesn't matter because the scale was different. I note the complete lack of even a passing reference to any scholarship on this subject. You bring up Michigan Law Review, the USSR, Nazi Germany and Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment as your sources.
I bring Chandler and Alvarez as my own. Chandler because I've read two of his works on Cambodia, his historiography of Cambodia from WWII to the fall of the Khmer Rouge and his biography of Pol Pot. From Alvarez, citing Helen Fein: [there are] four main motivations for genocide: Developmental, Despotic, Ideological, and Retributive. That's pp. 46-47 of Genocidal Crimes. You cannot further argue that ideology cannot be a motive behind action. As is already established, Marxism-Leninism informed Pol Pot's actions, actions which led to genocide. Further, Alvarez's own opinion is that all genocides have an underlying ideological component that is fundamental to facilitating the perpetration of this particular form of criminality. That's from p. 57. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The source provided by you says genocides can be ideologically motivated, and you conclude from that that Marxism-Leninism was Cambodian genocide's motive. And you added that statement to the article's space. And after that you accuse me of engaging in original research?! Don't you find it illogical? Yes, Fein's quote is an argument, but you cannot apply it to Cambodian genocide case without engaging in original research. Let's check what the sources say specifically about Cambodia. A simple goodle search provides this source (as you see, I am not cherry-picking), which says:
"Together, these two theoretical perspectives provide an insightful way of examining large-scale genocide. In particular, this approach suggests that, in order to achieve their violent political aims, genocidal regimes will draw on preexisting cultural models to motivate their minions to kill (Hinton 1997a). This is precisely what happened during the Cambodian genocide, as the DK regime both initiated sociopolitical transformations that undermined traditional constraints on violence and incorporated preexisting cultural models into their genocidal ideology. Because these models were salient to many Cambodians, they came to serve as highly motivating behavioral templates for violence within this altered context. "
That is exactly what I meant when I was "wikilawyering" in my previous post: under "motives" the infobox means "preexisting cultural models". Was xenophobia and racism such a model in Germany? Yes, and that is why it is listed in the infobox. Was Nazism a "preexisting cultural model"? No. And that is why Nazism is NOT included. Similarly, the source provided by me describes several preexisting cultural models that allowed KR to achieve their genocidal goals, but Marxism-Leninism is not listed among those models. Moreover, the very word "Marxism" is not found in the article (only in a title of one reference). Therefore, I have a strong reason to suspect it is not me who is engaged in original research. I expect you to demonstrate that Marxism-Leninism is universally considered as a motive for KR genocide, because I see that neither Hinton nor Kiernan, a leading expert in Cambodian genocide mentions Marxism* in their analysis of the mechanism of the genocide. If you provide a source that does say M-L was a motive, that may warrant inclusion of that information into the main article, but it will still be not sufficient for inclusion of that information into the infobox, per NPOV. I am still going to remove that statement from the infobox ny 20th of March.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
What Helen Fein writes about Cambodia specifically is as follows:
"To begin, I developed in 1982 an open-ended explanation aimed to cover all types of genocide and specified a variety of precipitant. Genocide is:
"... the calculated murder of a segment or all of a group defined outside of the universe of the perpetrator by a government, elite, staff or crowd representing the perpetrator in response to a crisis or opportunity perceived to be caused or impeded by the victim. Crises and opportunities may be a result of war, challenges to the structure of domination, the threat of internal breakdown or social revolution and economic development. . . . Motives may be ideological, economic, and/or political. ...Genocides, as are other murders, may be premeditated or an ad hoc response to a problem or opportunity (Fein 1993b)"
We can simplify and unpack the elements of this explanation (indicated by italics) so that we may later evaluate how well they fit the cases considered:
1) Moral exclusion. The victim, defined outside the universe of obligation of the perpetrator (see also Fein 1979:ch. 1), is thus excluded on the basis of a religious doctrine or ideology;
2) Legitimacy problem. Pre-existing legitimacy and solidarity problems lead to the acceptance of ideologies justifying the domination of one group;
3) Blaming the victim. A crisis or opportunity emerges which either is caused by or attributed to the victim or leads people to view the victim as inhibiting national or economic improvement or expansion; and
4) Patrons' tolerance. Because of the lack of checks by great powers and other patrons, genocide comes to be viewed as cost-free, making it a rational calculation in terms of costs and benefits."
Further, I sought to answer the following questions without precluding discoveries in the course of study which might enrich the explanation. How does ideology incorporate preexisting prejudices, as well as religious and national sentiments? How do social structures and religious and political cultures provide justifications for people to murder their fellow-citizens? What preceding conditions lead to murderous elites assuming power?
That is a full and extended quote from Fein (Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966Author(s): Helen FeinSource: Comparative Studies in Society and History, Oct., 1993, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823). The rest of the article is devoted to the comparative analysis of Cambodian and Indonesian genocides, and Fein says nothing about Marxism-Leninism in that her article when she is discussing motives.
I think you owe me an apology for baseless accusation of wikilawyering.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The more I am reading on that subject, the more I realise you are not right. This source explicitly says there is a disagreement among scholars if Marxism was a driving force of that genocide. I think we should discuss it in the article, but definitely not add it to the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
According to that source the only authors who denied connection to Marxism-Leninism were KR/genocide apologists like Vickery and Kiernan. According to the source most scholars DO make that connection. Volunteer Marek 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Do you really think Ben Kiernan and Vickery are genocide apologists? What about WP:BLP? Note, the author does not call them apologist, so this your statement should be attributed to some other source. And you must keep in mind that KR genocide is a unique case, because it was stopped by communist Vietnam, whereas the perpetrators continued to be supported by Western powers. Accordingly, it was in Vietnamese/Soviet interest to overstate the scale of killing (the very idea that it was genocide came primarily from the Vietnamese), and Western rights were trying to understate the scale of killings and to question the claim it was genocide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Vickery, definitely (BLP does not apply), Kiernan appears to have revised his position. And yes I'm fully aware of the "complexities" involved here (it's actually not that complex - remember that Maoists after the Sino-Soviet split saw themselves as the "true" Marxist-Leninists and saw the Soviets as the deviationists). Volunteer Marek 18:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr rnddude It looks like you are active, and you and the anon are engaged in an edit war. Maybe, you will better respond to my last post? Do you have any comments/thoughts? If yes, let me know if you are going to present more arguments and sources. If no, let's finish that dispute and remove Marxism-leninism. I think my argument is unbeatable, because even if some sources say KR genocide was inspired/motivated by M-L, many sources (including Fein, the source you yourself found) do not say that, and some sources reject the idea that Marxism played a significant role. Usually, in that situation, M-L should be removed from the infobox, and all opinia should be presented in the main article instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert - if it'll put an end to the link breaking reverts of the IP, fine. I have no qualms discussing this on article talk first. I am not the only participant here, though. Also, contrary to one of your assertions, as can be seen here I have not added or removed a single byte from this article. I did not add M-L to the article, it was there long ago. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
What you are doing is called reverts, and that can be seen as edit warring. If you continue in that vein, you may be blocked (IPs have less problems with that). I think by keeping reverting (as you promised), you are just wasting your time, it is much better to achieve a consensus, and if we achieve a consensus that will stop an edit war, because I respect consensus decisions, and I usually defend a consensus version (independently on whether it is is agreement with my POV or not). Either you convince me that I am not right (and I will be defending the current version), or you accept my viewpoint: in both cases, it would be easy to stop an edit war with that anon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not know what you people are debating here. This page already has a section on ideology, see Cambodian_genocide#Ideology, and it explains that it was very heavily influenced by the Marxism-Leninism. In fact, they followed the dogma too literally. The communist idea about merging of cities and the country side, not even Stalin or Trotsky wanted this in such a genocidal manner. Stalin "only" did Great Break (USSR), and Mao did Great Leap Forward. The latter was closer to the subject of this page. Hence the Maoist influence is rightly noted on the page. As about sources, the Black Book of Communism makes such connection in depth. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I find this edit summary highly inappropriate and misleading: I presented a detailed analysis of sources, and I answered all Mr rnddude's arguments (whereas my own arguments were not addressed). With regard to VM's arguments, I see nothing there that remained unaddressed (unless he claims Kiernan is not an expert in that field). Therefore, I find VM's revert disruptive. Moreover, it violates WP:BURDEN. I suggest VM to refrain from further escalation of this edit war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out, many sources include Marxism Leninism as a motivation for the genocide, and I don't think any deny that the KR were Marxist-Leninists. What we have here is that there are a few - Marxist or fringe - academics, who either tried to minimize or outright denied the genocide (even if they backtracked later once it was impossible to keep up with it (though Vickery didn't)) who have also tried to erase or misportray the motivations for it.
And sorry, I'm not the one "escalating" anything. You removed the info which has been in the article for a long time. Others objected. You then removed it again. I restored it. Then an IP showed up to remove it again. If anyone's "escalating" things here it's you I think. Volunteer Marek 01:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Long standing content is hardly a sign of validity. I requested evidences, and I got nothing. I provided sources, I performed the analysis of the sources presented by my opponent, and I proved my edit was quite legitimate. You failed to address my concern, and yours "many sources" is by no means convinsing. Show me your sources and quates, and demonstrate that your sources represent a majority viewpoint, whereas my sources are minority views (which would be impossible to to, taking into account that I cite leading experts in the field). So far, your arguments are totally unconvincing, and your sources ... I don't remember you ever presented any source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This is highly inappropriate too: the only reason for this revert was that the edit was made by an IP. That is not a legitimate reason.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
An IP jumping in to edit war is what's inappropriate. There's at least three editors disagreeing with you here Paul. Volunteer Marek 01:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly consensus is that Marxism-Leninism was a motive and so it should remain in the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Whose consensus? A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. In connection to that, I am wondering when, and by whom my proper concert have been taken into account? I saw no adequate responses to the arguments, quotes and sources presented by me om 16:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC), 16:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC), 16:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC), etc. Moreover, I explicitly requested to present counter-arguments and sources by March 20th. No responses followed, but when I made an edit, as I previously announced, it was reverted under a pretext that I presented no counter-arguments. I consider it a disrespect. Please, address my arguments, for, per WP:BURDEN, a responsibility to provide evidences lies on those who adds some text.
Since I already explained that I have no objection to the statements about the linkage between KR genocide and M-L in the article's body, an my objections are only to the infobox, the evidences that I expect to see must demonstrate that M-L is universally seen as a motive by majority of mainstream sources. If you fail to provide these evidences by March 25th, I am going to edit the infobox again, and further reverts will be considered as a sluggish edit warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Paul Siebert you cannot claim there is no consensus just because you aren't satisfied with the responses to the issues you raise. Frankly your ongoing comments are now TLDR and clearly no matter what anyone says you will disagree with them. The Users opposing your view form the consensus. You don't get to impose deadlines for responses, nor decide that responses must be given to your satisfaction. If you don't accept this then you should elevate this to another forum. Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Mztourist, what you say contradicts to our policy (WP:CCC). In contrast, I am proposing changes by raising "previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances". I do not challenge a recently achieved consensus, so my behaviour is not disruptive. I asked concrete questions, and I got no satisfactory answer. If you want, I can reproduce these questions specifically for you, but, as you correctly noted, this discussion is becoming redundantly long, so try to read the existing text. Again, I demonstrated that the sources (see above) do not support the disputed statement or directly say otherwise. I requested a source that confirms the existence of a scholarly consensus about that matter. You failed to provide any adequate answer.
And I have no idea why you decided the users who are opposing me form a consensus. To me, it more resembles WP:OWN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
You've received three separate 3Os. You can elevate this dispute to an RfC for a wider discussion. You can cast the accusation of ownership, but its quite shallow when none of the commenters here have made substantial edits to the article – one has never edited the article at all – and none of the commenters introduced the content under discussion in the first place. As to your 'concrete questions', you've made wild assertions. From, I paraphrase, 'ideology cannot be a motive because the proletariat are too dim to comprehend it' to 'there must be universal agreement across all sources for the material to be mentioned in the infobox'. The former, debunked ; the latter, unsupported by policy or guideline. You've also deflected away from substantive comments. You completely ignored the fact that one of your own sources supports the view that most scholars make the connection between ideology and the genocide, instead focusing on Volunteer Marek's assertion that Kiernan and Vickery were Khmer Rouge apologists.
You ask for sources, but then present an insurmountable barrier for inclusion that the statement must be universally supported by sources. That is a ridiculous demand when there's not even universal support for referring to the Cambodian Genocide as a genocide. By your logic, there should be no article for this subject at all. It makes your ownership accusation even more shallow.
I mentioned David P. Chandler previously, he calls the regime the purest and most thoroughgoing Marxist-Leninist movement in an era of revolutions. No other regime tried to go so far or so quickly. No other inflicted as many casualties on the country's population. Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot, p. 3. Kiernan comments that Chandler, by contrast, holds Marxism responsible for the violence, downplaying other factors like racist or genocidal policies. He argues, “Under the regime of Democratic Kampuchea (DK), a million Cambodians, or one in eight, died from warfare, starvation, overwork, misdiagnosed diseases, and executions. Most of these deaths, however, were never intended by DK. Instead, one Cambodian in eight fell victim to the government’s utopian program of total and rapid social transformation, which its leaders had expected would succeed at far less cost.”. From 'Bringing the Khmer Rouge to Justice' in the Human Rights Review April-June 2000, pp. 96–97. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, thank you for your detailed response. You are not right about 3Os, because Wikipedia is not a democracy: if other users just say "no, I disagree", that adds no weight to their POV. In contrast to them, you provided excellent arguments in support for inclusion of the linkage between Marxism and KR genocide into the article's body, and I never objected to that: yes, a significant number of sources claim there was a linkage, and that opinion should be included into the article.
However, as you probably noticed, we are discussing not the article, but the infobox, and the infobox is supposed to present universally accepted facts, not just opinia expressed by a part of a scholarly community. Therefore, I expect to see the evidence that that opinion is universally accepted. Previously, I demonstrated that your source (Harff) does not support that claim (Marxism-Leninism is not mentioned among motives of that genocide). Similarly, the quote from Kiernan, provided by you, is actually the argument supporting my viewpoint: Kiernan directly says he disagrees with the idea that Marxism motivated the genocide. Instead, he argues that KR's Marxist views inspired social transformations, which lead to killings. These are two different things: many leaders plan and perform social transformations, but they use different tools for that. The question is if Marxism motivated KR to select genocide as a tool to implement their social transformation plans, and I do not see how Kiernan's quote supports that claim.
Again. (i) Marxism (actually, Maoism) inspired KR to perform social transformations, (ii) to do that, they resorted to very brutal tools, including a direct genocide of 1/4 of Cambodian population; (iii) majority of sources explain the choice of the tools (immediate motives of the genocide) by the history of Khmer society, and they do not link that choice to Marxism. And the quote provided by you directly says that.
As you know, Vietnam also performed Marxist style social transformation, but there was no genocide in Vietnam. Moreover, it was Communist Vietnam who stopped Cambodian genocide (whereas the US continued to provide a diplomatic support for KR government). Therefore, it would be quite illogical to claim genocide was motivated by Marxism: Marxism inspired social transformations that lead to a dramatic escalation of violence, and, due to some specific situation in the Khmer society lead to genocide.
If you want more sources, consider David-Fox's opinion that Pol Pot’s study of Marxism in Paris is hardly more important historically than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge’s murderous anti-urbanism. I doubt any real expert in Marxism can agree that KR's murderous anti-urbanism has anything in common with true Marxism, and even with Soviet urbanistic Marxism-Leninism. Therefore, Chandler's opinion is just one extreme view on the opinion spectrum, and it by no means represents a scholarly consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I will be responding out of order to the points you make and will not respond to all of them, only those that are relevant to address.
As you know, Vietnam also performed Marxist style social transformation, but there was no genocide in Vietnam. Moreover, it was Communist Vietnam who stopped Cambodian genocide (whereas the US continued to provide a diplomatic support for KR government). Therefore, it would be quite illogical to claim genocide was motivated by Marxism: Marxism inspired social transformations that lead to a dramatic escalation of violence, and, due to some specific situation in the Khmer society lead to genocide. - Where to begin with this? Apply your argument to any other scenario: not all white supremacists [Marxist regimes] commit murder [genocide], therefore white supremacism [Marxism] cannot motivate a white supremacist [Marxist regime] to commit murder [genocide]. This is a non-sequitur.
Therefore, Chandler's opinion is just one extreme view on the opinion spectrum, and it by no means represents a scholarly consensus. - You know, I linked the article about him for a reason. He is perhaps the single most respected scholar in the field of Cambodian history. Kiernan studied under him. Trying to cast him as a fringe academic will lead nowhere. You already cited a source that presented the scholarly consensus. You still have not addressed it.
(iii) majority of sources explain the choice of the tools (immediate motives of the genocide) by the history of Khmer society, and they do not link that choice to Marxism. And the quote provided by you directly says that. - Neither of the two quotes I provided say anything akin to that. Presumably you know this, as it explains the attempt to cast Chandler as a fringe academic. Your assertion about the 'majority of sources' is claimed without evidence (and even with opposing evidence) and so may be dismissed without evidence.
I do not know who Harff is and cannot find any mention of them in this discussion. If you meant Fein, then I suggest you re-read that post as my source was Alvarez. Alvarez cited Fein's four main motivations and he concluded that all genocides have an ideological component to them. That post was dedicated to rebuking the notion that ideology cannot motivate genocide.
Lastly, are you asserting that you have not received three 3Os? Because I count three editors who have joined this discussion since it began: Mztourist, Volunteer Marek, and My very best wishes. If so, then you can technically request a 3O at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If not, then your next recourse is to call for a wider discussion, typically through an RfC. I see no reason you should prefer a 'sluggish edit-war' to a wider discussion involving more editors. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Mr rnddude. User:Paul Siebert several Users here have disagreed with your views and you haven't convinced any of us with your arguments or sources, accordingly you should either WP:DTS or elevate this, but you cannot assert that you have not been satisfied and insist on your version of the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, first, as I already pointed out, content disputes cannot be decided by WP:VOTE, so, no matter how many users agree with you, that does not affect an outcome if they provide no fresh arguments and sources. I would say, in this situation only you and I can be considered true participants. You must agree that the users who do not bother to read my posts and reject them because of tl;dr, hardly deserve serious attention.
My response to your counter arguments is as follows:
"not all white supremacists etc" - alas, that is a straw man argument. A closer analogy would be: "if genocide of native Americans was committed by Christians, who wanted to convert them into Christianity, should we say Christianity was a motive?" (Obviously, the answer is "no").
With regard to Chandler, I accept your argument, but I have to read a little bit more on that subject to give a final responce.
"Your assertion about the 'majority of sources' is claimed without evidence" yes, that is a quite legitimate criticism. I need some time to analyse sources.
"I do not know who Harff is" I meant Fein, sorry.
"Alvarez cited Fein's four main motivations" yes, but that does not change the fact that Fein herself authored a paper about Cambodian genocide, where she applied her theory to the analysis of its roots. She doe not mention Marxism among the causes or motives of that genocide, and her opinion cannot and should not be ignored. Note, I didn't cherry-pick sources to support my POV, I used Fein because you mentioned her.
Let's separate two things: inclusion of a discussion of Marxism's influence on KR into the article, and the statement "Marxism-Leninism was a motive for the genocide". The arguments supporting the former are not expected to be some ironclad proof of universal acceptance by a scholarly community, and that is why I never objected to that. Yes, a significant fraction of authors consider KR Marxists, and they see a strong linkage between the genocide and Marxism. And all your arguments brilliantly demonstrate that idea. The problem is that I never objected to that. Instead, I requested for a proof that Marxism-Leninism is universally seen as a motive of the genocide, because if that thesis is not supported by sources it cannot be added to the infobox. To prove that, you are expected to show that the sources that reject or do not support that idea are considered marginal by a scholarly community. So far, I got no evidences for that. I need the evidence that KR are universally considered an orthodox Marxist-Leninist regime (many sources directly disagree with that), and that Marxism is universally seen as a motive. I need some time to check if my first impression from reading sources is correct, but so far I have a strong feeling that that I am right, and the views you are advocating are not universally accepted by a scholarly community, and, therefore, do not belong to the infobox.
I expect you to continue this thoughtful and mutually respectful discussion in the same manner.
Regards--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I am an active participant in this debate. The fact that I find your arguments TLDR does not in any way disqualify me. There is absolutely no requirement "For a proof that Marxism-Leninism is universally seen as a motive of the genocide" in order for it to be in the Infobox, where did that come from apart from your own personal interpretation? All that needs to be shown is that some RS assert it as a motive and that has been satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
That comes from WP:NPOV, which says when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. I could elaborate on that, but I will do that only upon your request: it seems you have no desire to read long posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how you can possibly claim NPOV and BALANCE to support your demand "For a proof that Marxism-Leninism is universally seen as a motive of the genocide" in order for it to be in the Infobox. They do not contain any such universality requirement. I also have to question why you are so hung up on this issue? I and several other Users disagree with you, we have presented RS and counter-arguments, but you just seem determined to WP:BLUDGEON everyone until you get your way and that isn't forming consensus. Mztourist (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a big difference between writing in the article that "the Marxist-Leninist concept of class enemies led to the killing of educated Cambodians" (which sounds reasonable and is supported by many sources) and writing in the infobox that Marxism-Leninism was a motive. I never objected to the former, and strongly object to the latter, because that is a NPOV violation. See my explanations in my previous posts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Elizabeth Becker states at pages 121-2 of When the War was Over: "[Saloth Sar] knew how to manipulate the "modern, scientific" theories of Marxism-Leninism to give legitimate expression to ancient racist attitudes and cultural animosities." Mztourist (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, that is what I mean: perpetrator's motives were racism and Khmer's culture of revenge, and that was used by Pol Pot, who wanted to implement his ultra-Maoist plans. And Becker says exactly the same: Pol Pot manipulated modern theories (which means he didn't follow a classical Marxian dogma), and used the existing attitude of the local population to recruit followers. I already explained that above, but it seems you didn't read that. Instead, you presented the quote that adds more evidences supporting my viewpoint.
In addition, I know many sources saying that Communist regimes are intrinsically non-genocidal (despite the fact that many of them committed mass killings). Therefore, the claim that Marxism, like racism and xenophobia, can be a motive for genocide sound totally weird.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The quote from Becker does not prove your point, Marxism-Leninism provided an ideological framework for existing prejudices and also the concept of class enemies which led to the killing of educated Cambodians which cannot be explained by racism, cultural animosities or revenge. Mztourist (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see " which cannot be explained by racism, cultural animosities or revenge" in the quote provided by you. Withregard to the rest, you literally reproduce my point. Yes, Pol Pot's familiarity with Maoism (which was a further development of "Marxism-Leninism", a weird concept created by Stalin) provided an ideological framework for killings. In other words, M-L served as a tool. And that is exactly what I say, and this my point is supported by the sources I already cited above, and by Becker.
I also provided the sources that explain KR genocide by racism, cultural animosities or revenge. I also have sources that draw more similarity between KR genocide and other Asian genocides than with Communist mass killings in other parts of the world. I can provide them if you want. In addition, you may be interested to read what Benjamin Valentino says about that. He is a genocide scholar whose theory states that ideology played a minimal role in XX century mass killings, including KR genocide. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs on this issue so much that I don't see any benefit in continuing this discussion. Consensus is against you, Marxism-Leninism stays in the Infobox. If you wish you can elevate this issue to another forum. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Two people can hardly form a consensus by themselves. Pol Pot's genocidal regime was based on many ideas, but listing M-L as a motive of the Cambodian Genocide is built on an extremely shaky foundation. Even the citation for M-L as part of the party's ideology is based on a single source - an archived link to an old page of the history channel's website (the same history channel that nowadays runs more conspiracy theory programs than anything else, but I digress...), which doesn't contain the words "Marxism-Leninism" or even "Leninism", in stead dubbing Pol Pot only as a "Marxist dictator", which to be fair he was. However, anyone involved in political science can easily point out the huge contradiction between the Soviet-style ML, that considers the industrial working class of the city as the driver of the M-L desired communist revolution, and Pol Pot's extreme anti-industrialism and anti-urbanism. This is because his blend of ideology is not based on M-L (though you could argue he could have been influenced by it), but rather on a blend of fierce xenophobia, racism, and his own 'interpretation' of Maoism. For example, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica describes him as "a French-educated disciple of Maoist “total revolution” ".[1] Whether or not he was a "real" Maoist or merely "used" Maoism remains the subject of debate,[2] but the link is nonetheless well understood. Mao certainly seemed to be of such an opinion, at least during the regime's early days.[3] I think that Pol Pot's ideology should be more accurately depicted in this way, as opposed to the very problematic way it is described right now. Understanding the underpinnings of the ideology behind the genocide is crucial to being able to find the fallacy that led people to commit such atrocities. Understanding that is, in turn, crucial to never letting such a despicable thing happen again. Goodposts (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Mztourist, your last response is highly inappropriate. You accuse me of tendentious editing and acting against consensus in a situation when no actual consensus exist. We have a few users who support your view without providing any serious arguments. Based on that, you conclude you have a right to ignore my arguments. That is a gross misinterpretation of a consensus policy, so that is not a content dispute, but a conduct issue. And, as you can see, I am even not the only person who raises a legitimate concern. This legitimate concern gas not been addressed, so the article by no means is a consensus version. Please, take a time to properly address my and Goodposts's arguments, otherwise I will edit the infobox as I previously announced. If you will continue reverting my edits, the next step would be to place the POV template into the article to inform a reader that the article has neutrality issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No, if you change it again that will be edit warring and I will report you for it. Several other Users disagree with your views and have dealt with it in detail above, but you keep tendentiously arguing and then claiming that no-one has addressed your arguments. User:Goodposts is a late arrival to this discussion but his/her views have already been addressed above. As I said you need to elevate this to another forum. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Virtually every your argument contradicts to WP:CCC. Well, then I put the POV template, because a reader must be informed about the article's neutrality issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"Virtually every your argument" what does that even mean? The consensus has not changed despite your views. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Mztourist, I cannot help but be disappointed that all three of the sources I provided appear to have been completely ignored, dismissed due to me "arriving too late" to the discussion. Wikipedia has no finality - it can be edited by anyone, at any time, even after a page has become fully satisfactory to its previous editors, due to WP:OWN. Anyone can jump into the discussion at any point, and the only thing that matters is down to WP:RS. Ignoring all of my sources due to me having breached some kind of artificial time limit (by the way, the discussion had started about a month ago, and the last post was just a day or two before my post) is not very constructive. Let's take a step back on the polemics for a second. Wikipedia is built on RS, and I do believe all three not only meet the criteria, but are much higher quality sources than an archived history channel page that doesn't even mention the thing it is supposedly cited for. So, my question is this - do you have any reasonable objection to the sources I provided? Ignoring all polemics, arguments, et cetera - do you see a good reason why these sources should not supersede the current single source, the issues with which I have described above? If so, I'd love to hear your reasoning. This discussion would go much farther if we focused on RS and what they are saying, rather than getting bogged down in endless discussions that will fall under WP:NOR anyway. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Where in the sources you have provided does it say that Marxism-Leninism was not a motive/cause of the genocide? You acknowledge yourself that Pol Pot was a "Marxist dictator" so I'm really not sure why don't regard Marxism-Leninism as being a motive. Mztourist (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Mztourist, if you read the link provided by me, you probably noticed that all what I am doing directly follows from our policy. ("an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion"). That is exactly what I did: I started a discussion. I would say even more: I did NOT know if there were any discussion of that matter in the past or there was just an silent consensus (maybe, someone just added M-L to the infobox and nobody objected). I did NOT know what really happened, but I assumed there was a discussion, and that is why I started a new discussion. That demonstrates my good faith and my respect of the users who worked on this article in the past.
In contrast, you are doing exactly opposite to what our policy says.
The very fact that we are having this discussion is sufficient to say that even if there was any consensus in the past, there is no any consensus on that subject anymore, so we need to establish a new one. In connection any further references to an ostensibly existing consensus will be considered as disruptive behaviour. You should either focus on addressing concrete arguments presented by your opponentS, or do not prevent other from implementing the proposed changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is not meant to be an endurance event with one User, you, disagreeing with everyone else, writing long expositions and requiring that we satisfy you, eventually leading to Users giving up with exhaustion. Mztourist (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
My attention to this article was drawn by some anon, who removed M-L. I just supported that change. Later, a new user (I don't know if that was the same anon or not) also expressed the same opinion. Later, one more user brought fresh arguments, which you seem to completely ignore. And after that you dare to claim I am the only user who is not satisfied with the article?
Next, you are constantly referring to some "consensus" (which, as I explained, is not recommended by WP:CON). But can we speak about any consensus in this case? In reality, I found no discussion on that matter in the talk page archives, which means, that subject was never properly discussed in the past. Instead, there is a couple of users who appeared to be incapable to properly address my arguments, but who believe they have a right to ignore them because what I say contradicts to some "consensus" (which, as I see now, has never been achieved through discussion). It is suspiciously resembles WP:OWN. Long standing content is not a holy cow, and if you cannot defend it, do not prevent others from editing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Mztourist, that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't just add something in an article and then demand that it stays there until somebody brings up a source that explicitly states that what your claim is wrong. Moreover, the sources do actually imply it. All three of them describe him as having his own, fiercely xenophobic ideology, based on Maoism, not Marxism-Leninism. You appear to think that Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and Maoism are interchangeable terms, but they're not. The latter two are actually mutually exclusive. Let me explain the issue in deeper detail anyway. First, while all MLs are Marxists, not all Marxists are MLs. The German SPD was founded and for an extremely long amount of time supported and extolled Marxism, and yet still not only opposed Marxism-Leninism, but was also a strongly anti-communist party for much of its existence. Second, ML is an ideology based around the Soviet model, it is centred around the idea of industrialization of the nation as a means of achieving their goals. The entire ideology is based around industrialism and the urban, industrial working class front and centre. This is more or less the exact opposite of the Khmer Rouge's ideology, which saw industrialization as a western-imposed evil. A large part of the genocide was the destruction of urbanism, industrialism and the intelligentsia. As the sources that I have provided clearly state, this is due to the mixing of the Khmer extremism with a Maoist understanding of 'revolution'. Maoists, as opposed to the Soviet-type MLs, view the rural peasantry as the engine for their desired revolution - clearly a philosophy a lot closer to that of Pol Pot. As the sources stated, he used this underlying assumption, along with his extremist positions on race and nation, and even more extremist methods of attempting to achieve his goals, to create the ideology of death that underpinned the atrocities he committed. Quite frankly, Pol Potism ought to be spun out into its own separate article, but I digress and suggest we stick to what is stated in the sources. As the user above mentioned, you have not really established any stable consensus yourself, nor proved one existed prior to his edit. Moreover, as he already noted, consensus can change. Moreover, as you can see now, there are multiple editors questioning the present status quo. I find it very contradictory that you chastised me for "arriving too late", while also accusing the other editor of "pulling it along for too long", implying that he has been doing this since the mythical early time that I wasn't a part of. Lastly, I find it extremely contradictory how the lede mentions the CCP and China more than it does the Khmer Rouge (and clearly lists "ultra-Maoism" as the state ideology), and yet, out of all the possibilities, "Marxism-Leninism" is listed as the motive. From a political science standpoint, that just plain and simply doesn't make any sense. Kind of feels like someone tacked it on "for good measure". The only source used for this, as I've already mentioned, is an archived old page from a TV channel known for peddling conspiracy theories that directly contradicts the more established sources. Goodposts (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
PS. Even if we assume that the history channel was written before it became dominated by 'documentaries' about aliens and secret nazi conspiracies, as I've already stated, that source does not mention Marxism-Leninism at all. So even if we do assume it is a reputable source, it still does not prove your point. Goodposts (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Correct. In addition, being a part of a lede an infobox is supposed to to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article, so when I see the infobox statement about M-L as a motive of the genocide, I expect to obtain more detailed information about that. Meanwhile, the article says nothing about M-L as a motive, which means the M-L statement does not summarise what the article says. Therefore, I remove M-L from the infobox, and I respectfully ask everybody not re-add it until a well sourced description of M-L as a motive of Cambodian genocide is added to the article's body. Any attempt to restore this statement without making necessary changes to the article will be considered a disruption.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, just put this up for RfC. This is turning into an edit war, and now saw that somebody reverted it again, yet there is still not a word about the sources I mentioned, which appear to have gone completely ignored. All of the discussions here are WP:NOR anyway, so just RfC it and place the three sources I linked against the 'source' that doesn't contain what it is cited for and let the community work the problem out. None of the three are by Kiernan, so the whole big debate above is moot. Just place the citation they're currently using up against the ones I mentioned and let the community take it from there. This neatly ends the endless arguments and brings everyone back on Earth, so we can discuss sources, instead of playing debate club (NOR). Goodposts (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is deeper: we have a weird situation when a couple of users claim they are defending some "consensus" version, and that I am edit warring against it, "splitting hair on this" etc. They failed to present an evidence that the issue has ever been discussed on the talk page (so there is no explicit consensus, and this discussion is the first time when we try to reach it), and they failed to recognize that at least three users (you, I, and one anonymous IP) find this statement questionable (which means I am by no means acting alone). Therefore, their position is based on an obviously false premise (double false, strictly speaking), and they are perfectly aware of that. Actually, that is a personal attack (accusation of misbehaviour without providing evidences). Therefore, we are dealing with a conduct issue, not a content dispute. That means there is no reason for starting any RfC so far. I think the users I am talking about should concede their position is not correct, and that the previous version of the infobox does not reflect any consensus: it is just a long standing version. After that, we can continue our discussion (if they are ready to present fresh arguments in support of M-L in the infobox), and, if they want, we can jointly think about a neutral formula of possible RfC.
Frankly speaking, I am somewhat busy in RL, but I hope I will have more time in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I too am busy, but have enough time today to leave some comments. For the record, the 'one anonymous user' whom Siebert is taking oh so seriously, while playing charades with the other four users who have also participated here and whom did – despite your narrative – present sources, is this IP. Can you spot the problem?
[A]nd that is why I started a new discussion - This is untrue as can be verified by anybody with a pair of eyes and an ability to use the scroll bar. I opened this thread, not you. It is unwise to make demonstrably false claims. This is among several others, such as that nobody else has presented any serious arguments. I presented two sources for my position, namely those of Chandler and Alvarez. Neither of which you ever responded to, besides to claim that Chandler is a fringe academic without evidence. You retracted that statement and said you'd need to review further.
Goodposts, would it be accurate to say that your argument is that Marxism-Leninism should be replaced with Maoism? First, I'll repeat Chandler's stated view that the Khmer Rouge were the purest and most thoroughgoing Marxist-Leninist movement in an era of revolutions. No other regime tried to go so far or so quickly. No other inflicted as many casualties on the country's population. There are indeed high-quality reliable sources that back the claim that the Khmer Rouge were Marxist-Leninists, it is not only a television channel. Second, in the diff linked above, Maoism was listed as a motive. I believe it got lost because a manual revert was required.
Finally, an RfC was suggested repeatedly weeks ago. It invites uninvolved editors who likely have more sources to proffer to contribute and the outcome of an RfC would be binding. Had one been opened when it was first suggested on March 22nd, a resolution would be not more than a week away. If you open an RfC today or tomorrow, it will be closed one month from now. To claim to seek consensus while actively avoiding the best available path to achieving a binding consensus is contradictory. Paul, you seem more concerned with getting your way than forming a consensus, particularly since you demand my way now, consensus later. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I broadly agree with Mr rnddude's opinions. What we're seeing here is the usual Communist scholasticism going on. It's nothing new really. First they wholeheartedly defend yet another catastrophic Marxist experiment, then they "explain away" the shortcomings as minor deviations or the results of the "Western sabotage/embargo" that supposedly causes all the hardship (cf. Cuba) etc., finally when a communist regime becomes so utterly discredited as the Khmer Rouge regime they announce without the least shame that "it never was real communism, it was actually fascism"! We're seeing this in our days regarding the "Bolivarian Socialism" in Venezuela, where even the local communist party is opposing the government which it currently declares to be "social democratic" and "rentier capitalist".
Just note how Siebert's only supporters are adamant of removing any mentions of communism in connection with Pol Pot and his Communist Party: [7], [8].
So what is to be done wrt the infobox? It's too long. Just summarize the persecution of various religious groups under "State Atheism" or something. Each and every religion was forbidden. Anti-Cham sentiment, anti-Thai sentiment and Sinophobia could be summarized as "Xenophobia". Anti-intellectualism however is very important, because other communist regimes weren't anti-intellectual per se, with the notorious exception of China during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. So it's a distinguishing feature indeed.
According to a source provided above, Cambodia underwent "the purest and most thoroughgoing Marxist-Leninist movement in an era of revolutions. No other regime tried to go so far or so quickly. No other inflicted as many casualties on the country's population" so Marxism-Leninism is clearly supported. But to address Paul Siebert's concerns, we might write "Marxism-Leninism/Maoism", so as to underscore that albeit being a communist regime, it clearly had its own particularities. Maoism on steroids, so to say. Potugin (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the comments of User:Mr rnddude and User:Potugin. As I suggested on 10 March above "The current motives in the Infobox are ridiculously over detailed, they should be: "racism/xenophobia, anti-religion, anti-intellectualism, ultranationalism and Marxism-Leninism"" but agree that could be "Marxism-Leninism/Maoism". regards Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break (continuation of the discussion with Mr rnddude et al)

This section is becoming long, so I believe an arbitrary break would be useful. Mr rnddude, thank you for your comments. Your argumemts are formally correct, but it seems you are too focused on minor details.

  • Yes, formally you are right, and the the first two posts were made by you. However, it does not matter who started the discussion (you, by making first posts, of I, by responding to them). What really important is the fact that during this discussion, the role of Marxism-Leninism as a motive is being discussed for the first time. It had never been discussed before, which means we have no reason to speak about any explicit consensus, and, therefore, any claim that I am acting against some previously achieved consensus are totally false. That was my point. Have you any objection to that?
  • Regarding "while playing charades with the other four users", you forget that the accusation was that I am the only user who is acting against everybody else. Therefore, it would be quite legitimate to argue that I am NOT the only user: at least three other users expressed similar concerns. That fact is being ignored by my opponents, and that is why I am pointing out at that fact. Now, when I explained that, I believe it would be fair if you retracted your accusations as baseless.
  • I have no objections to the RfC, but, again, let's separate conduct issues from content disputes. I was accused, totally falsely, of acting against some consensus (which had never been achieved through a discussion), and acting alone against many users (which is not true, for at least two other users express the same concern). These accusations are thrown repeatedly, and the atmosphere is becoming somewhat toxic. I think we need to stop this nonsense before any RfC starts. Do you guys agree with that?

Regarding M-L as a motive, my goal is not to remove a mention of M-L, but to fix obvious nonsense. First, as I already explained (see also this talk page), M-L in the infobox contradicts to the infobox guidelines, which requires that infoboxes must summarize what the article say, not supplant the article. Currently, the article says nothing about M-L as a motive, which means we can add it to the infobox only after the article is updated. Second, all what you say support the claim that KR were inspired by Marxism-Leninism (although most sources say about Maoism). From that, you conclude that M-L was a motive. I repeatedly asked for a source that claim that M-L is universally considered a motive of the genocide, but you failed to provide them. Chandler doesn't say that, and putting that claim into his mouth would be OR. Third, since you provided no sources, I decided to do this job on behalf of you. I asked myself a question: "How the motives of Cambodian genocide are described in literature?". Note, I didn't look for a linkage between Marxism-Leninism and Cambodian genocide, I didn't look for sources that support the idea about a lack of such a linkage - I just performed a totally neutral search.

I asked a totally neutral question, and analysed sources, one by one (of course, only those links that provide an access to full text version). I believe you must agree that that procedure is totally fair and unbiased. By now I am at the page 4 of the list, and I can say that majority of sources say nothing about motives. So far, three articles seem interesting: The Cambodian Genocide: Causes and Aftermath By Major M.J.Dugdale, The Three "Switches" of Identity Construction in Genocide: The Nazi Final Solution and the Cambodian Killing Fields by Maureen S. Hiebert and “They will rot the society, rot the party, and rot thearmy”*: Toxification as an ideology and motivationfor perpetrating violence in the Khmer Rougegenocide? by Timothy Williams & Rhiannon Neilsen

I suggest you to read them in full, because it seems the whole "Motives" section in the infobox should be seriously modified.

The Dugdale's article contains a section that is specifically devoted to perpetrators motivation. It is more a review of sources, and Chandler's views are discussed there among the views of other authors. According to Dugdale, Chandler says nothing about Marxism as a motive, and, with due respect, I am inclined to believe to his interpretation, not to Mr rnddude (who, as well as me or any other user, should be considered as just an amateur). By the way, in his article, Dugdale does not mention Marxism at all, which means none of the authors reviewed by him (besides Chandler, these authors are Whittaker and Staub) consider Marxism as a motive. In addition, Dugdale separates a discussion of "Intent" and "Motivation" into two different sections, and the influence of Maoist Communism, a desire to build agrarian Communism is discussed in the former section. But that is exactly what I said before: your sources relate to KR's intents, but they say nothing about perpetrator motivation, and the fact that Dugdale discuss them in separate sections proves these two topics are different things. With regard to other two articles, they seem to be the first attempts to explain the motives of Cambodian genocide perpetrators using some systematic approach (not just declarations). With regard to Marxism-Leninism, the only context it is mentioned by Hiebert is the role if Marxism (not M-L) is the "first switch" (read the article to understand what does it mean). The author says:

"The first-switch reconceptualization of the identity of the various victim groups as outside revolutionary Cambodian society revolved around the Khmer Rouge’s own particularly rigid Marxist understanding of Cambodian society as historically and presently divided into antagonistic classes. "

Literally, KR saw person's belonging to some class more like a biological phenomenon, so to them the only way to create a classless society was to physically eliminate all representatives of a certain class. As Hiebert correctly notes, that was KR's own interpretation of Marxism (he says nothing about M-L), not Marxism itself, therefore, it would be totally incorrect to claim a generic M-L was a motive.

Regarding the second article, it says nothing about M-L as a motive. The authors conclude:

"For many years, the prevailing tendency in the genocide literature was to assume perpetrators are motivated to engage in killing by ideologies. However, these claims have only recently received a more rigorous, empirical treatment. This article has sought to push this agenda further and to explore the dynamics of ideology and individual motivation in the case of the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge."

I cannot post big quotes, because that may be a copyright violation, which is against our policy. I recommend you to read the article in full: it provides a very nuanced explanation of such a unique event as Cambodian genocide (and, by the way, does not mention Marxism at all). And, again, try to understand the following: I performed a neutral search for sources to answer a question: what was a KR genocide's motive(s)?", and I honestly describe what I found. By no means this fits a definition of cherry-picking or POV-pushing. Now it is your turn: please, point at possible flaws in my search procedure or demonstrate that you yourselves are not POV-pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist, frankly, I am more interested to see your sources rather than your opinion. Your opinion is not what we are expected to see in the article. I presented my sources, now it is a time for you to present yours.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Paul Siebert WP:SATISFY. You are trying to argue that ideology is not a relevant motive, I and several other Users disagree with you, but you continue to insist on your viewpoint. You need to elevate this to another forum. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Mztourist, first, instead of citing an essay (which is neither a policy nor even guidelines), familiarise yourself with what our policy says: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: I am expressing quite a legitimate concern, and I expect you guys to take some efforts (as our policy requires) to incorporate it. By doing that, you are not pleasing me, you are just doing what our policy says. Second, please, read the above text: not only I presented my sources, I presented the sources that I obtained using a totally neutral way, which meant these sources were not selected to support or debunk some idea, but to answer the question: "what were the perpetrators motives?". You probably haven't noticed that, but the sources I found answer this question, and if you, or anybody else repeat the same search, you will find the very same sources. That means I am not cherry-picking, but honestly describe what the sources say, and I do not select sources that support my POV.
By the way, Dugdale cites Chandler's opinion only on the victims behaviour (the full title of the section is "perpetrators motivation and victims behaviour"), that means Chandler hardly says anything specific about the perpetrators motivation. I found no mention of Marxism as a motivation factor in the Dugdale's article, which means the reviewed authors do not see Marxism as a motive, according to Dugdale. And, again, I think I am right when I trust to the interpretation provided by a renown author published in a peer-reviewed journal, and not to the opinia of some Wikipedians, who are writing under nicknames. You may be an expert in the field, but I don't know your real life name and credentials, and I legitimately assume you are just an amateur, whose interpretations should be treated with a reasonable scepticism. Actually, we have a special policy, NOR, which explicitly prohibits liberal interpretations of what RS say. Actually, the main mistake you guys are doing is as follows: you present sources that link KR with Marxism (or Maoism), and that say that KR general strategy was inspired my Marx (or Mao's) ideas. And that is true: many sources do say that. However, you go further: from that you conclude that Marxism was a motive of the genocide. However, that is your own conclusion, and when I ask to provide sources that say so, you respond: "we achieved a consensus that we are right". However, local consensus cannot override our policy, and in this case you guys go against NOR.
Again, I've presented my sources, and they are not cherry-picked and not misinterpreted. Please, show your sources, along with the proof that you haven't cherry-picked them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
And, yes, I agree with you that the whole "Motives" section needs a significant improvement. I suggest to start with modifying the article first, and then bring the infobox in accordance with it (actually that is literally what guidelines recommend).--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Paul Siebert TLDR, I have made my position clear, open an RFC or take another step to elevate this. Mztourist (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I am disappointed. I made a good faith attempt to perform a neutral analysis of sources that write about the genocide's motives, and you even haven't bothered to read it. By doing that, you showed an utter disrespect to my position and to the good faith work I've made. I don't think a user who does not respect to the position of their opponent can expect that their own position would be respected. By doing that, you eliminated yourself from the consensus building process.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, if I were "more concerned with getting my way", I wouldn't perform the above shown analysis. I am playing fairly: I analyze all sources that I was able to find using a neutral search, and honestly describe what I found. When I started that analysis, I could not predict its results, and if the sources obtained would say "Marxism-Leninism was the motive", I would honestly write that.
Potugin, yes, Maoism would be more correct, because Maoism is the Asian version of Stalin's "Marxism-Leninism". KR were mostly China's clients, but even the PRC leaders were somewhat shocked by Pol Pot's radicalism. Therefore, "Maoism" (without M-L, for the former is a part of the later) would be more precise. "Ultra-Maoism" would be even better. I would agree with that until yesterday. However, after I performed the analysis of sources (see above), I found the sources that are specifically devoted to that issue do not describe various "-isms" as a motive. One source speak about "KR own extreme interpretation of Marxism", another source provides a totally different explanation (non related to M-L), and the third source separates "Intents" from "Motives". My impression is that Maoism is more related to KR intents in general, than to the perpetrators motives. I have a string feeling that by adding various "isms" to the infobox we are engaged in original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to your demand that an RfC be delayed until your request is fulfilled. This doesn't preclude you from conducting a search for sources.
Regarding "while playing charades with the other four users" .... Until April 13th, you were the only participant in this discussion to raise the view that Marxism-Leninism should be removed from the infobox. The IP did not leave any 'serious argument' or 'sources' (your standard) on this talk page and thus cannot be considered [a] true participant (your words). You are currently claiming that there are three other participants with similar concerns here. I can count only one, Goodposts. Who are the other two?
Here is the evidence to back my accusation: 1) I would say, in this situation only you and I can be considered true participants - Directed to me with the sole purpose of dismissing the participation of My Very Best Wishes, Mztourist, and Volunteer Marek. 2) We have a few users who support your view without providing any serious arguments - Directed to Mztourist with the same purpose. 3) I saw no adequate responses to the arguments, quotes and sources presented by me ... - The accusation is untrue. Volunteer Marek identified on the same day that one of your own sources states that most scholars make a connection between Marxism-Leninism and the genocide.
You are happy to dismiss any participant who does not acquiesce to your demands or support yours views, but you'll claim that an IP who contributed naught to this discussion or to the article raises legitimate concerns. How precisely do you expect that to be taken in good faith? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, my demand is to stop saying that I am acting against some consensus, because no previous consensus existed, and the de novo consensus building process is currently in progress. That is the only thing I demand, and this my demand is pretty legitimate. With regard to RfC, I think we probably need not an RfC, but NORN, for the problem seems to be that you guys are engaged in OR: you take sources that say KR were Marxists, and you conclude that Marxism was the perpetrators motive. It seems that logical step is not found in the sources that you are referring to.
With regard to your "You are happy to dismiss any participant who does not acquiesce to your demands or support yours views", that is untrue. You cannot say I am dismissing you. Moreover, I would be happy if you find some flaw in the source analysis presented by me above. As soon as my opponents do not resort to "tl:dr" arguments, I respect them. I cannot rule out a possibility that your arguments may force me to reconsider my view, but the only thing that you have proven so far is that, according to many sources (I cannot say they constitute a majority of souurces, I don't know that yet), KR were Marxists to some extent (although many sources say that they were very specific Marxists). However, one step is still missing, and you provided no arguments and sources saying that Marxism was their motive. According to one of sources cited by me, "Intent" and "Motivation" are two different categories, and Marxism was more related to the former. I still got no sources that prove that Marxism is universally seen as a motive ("universally" is needed to put such a statement to the infobox).
With regard to the users who are dissatisfied with that statement, they are this,this, and that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It will take me time to go through your sources. I am working every single day this week (incl. the weekend). Unfortunately dealing in and with aspersions takes far less time than reading or finding sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Take your time. Frankly, I am busy too (yesterday, I unexpectedly had 3 hours for my exercises with sources, but I am not sure I will be able to do anything during the week). I would appreciate if you continue to dig sources from the link I provided, because I have a feeling that, according to the sources I found, there were no systematic study of Cambodian motives until recently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr rnddude - replying down here, as the above section got a bit too crowded. I will only comment on the part of the discussion that involves me and I do agree in general that Pol Pot's ideology was a lot closer to Maoism. Whether that was the motive, part of the motive, influenced or aggravated the motive or was unrelated to the motive, however, is the part that remains contentious according to the sources. Now, you've brought up a source that does make that claim, which means some of the sources remain in contention with each other. Now, this could be resolved in one of two ways - either a scholarly consensus should be established, or both points of view should be listed. Doing the latter would be extremely difficult in the infobox, and perhaps the way it is usually solved is simply by placing a "see bellow" hyperlink to the heading that explains the contradiction in a way that follows DUE guidelines. I'm surprised that nobody has brought up this idea in the past, especially considering it would conveniently also resolve the overcrowded infobox issue some other users also brought up. I agree with you that this ought to have been RfC'd long ago, and that failure to do so has led to this extremely protracted debate. However, as I've said in the past, there is no strict time limit for this to happen. A long overdue RfC is still better than WP:BATTLE. The length of this argument has made it clear that no position has managed to create a stable consensus, and that's where you typically involve the community in order to get some neutral opinions. The latter comments by some editors about other countries, or the legitimacies of this or that regime are not relevant to the discussion at hand. The constant sidetracking and derailing of the conversation away from RS is, in my opinion, the root cause of this long debate and the reason why I believe uninvolved editors will likely end the dispute. As for the sources I mentioned, I have yet to see reasonable objections to them, and hence consider them applicable and, considering both their number and quality, see absolutely no reason why they should not be included in the page or why their conclusions should not be taken into consideration. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Not DUE guidelines, but WP:NPOV (which is a policy). And I already said that any statement of that kind can be placed into the infobox if two conditions are met: (i) this subject has been described in the article's body (otherwise it contradicts to the infobox guidelines), and (ii) the article's body says that Marxism-Leninism (Maoism/Anti-Buddhism, etc) is universally recognized as a motive by most sources (otherwise to place such a statement would be against NPOV). Currently, none of those two conditions are met. In connection to that, I propose: (i) remove questionalbe statements from the infobox (That should not be a big problem, because most infoboxes do not have "Motives" subsection at all), (ii) write the "Perpetrators motivation" subsection in the article (we have at least three sources that are devoted to that issue specifically), (iii) re add the "Motives" subsection that summarizes what the article says. Does anybody have any reasonable objections to that plan?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I personally do not object, it seems like a reasonable and actionable plan. Goodposts (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes I object to it, this should go to RFC or another forum. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "EB - Maoism reference". Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved 13 April 2021.
  2. ^ "uOttawa reference". Retrieved 13 April 2021.
  3. ^ "Wilson Center reference". Retrieved 13 April 2021.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claudiahan5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mchau5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Schools

I am amazed this is not taught in our schools 47.187.85.54 (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Which schools are these? Which country's? Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to western schools, in which case that isn't surprising because Asian history in general isn't really covered extensively in western schools. X-Editor (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

‘Attack type’ in main infobox?

This is an article about genocide, not a Pokémon card. What kind of phrasing is this? UsersLikeYou (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong place to discuss this UsersLikeYou. This is a feature of the template, not this article. Raise it at the talk page of {{infobox civilian attack}}. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cambodian_genocide/Archive_1&oldid=1136588565"