Talk:Democratic Kampuchea/Archive 1

Pov Problems

I've bolded the biased parts of the section I call POV: The war was over, but the terrible dreams of the Khmer Rouge were about to come to fruition in the newly-proclaimed Democratic Kampuchea. Khmer Rouge troops immediately began to forcibly empty the capital, driving the population into the countryside and killing thousands in the process. The Year Zero had begun.

This article doesn't inform

This article doesn't inform or rather misinforms. Democratic Kampuchea wasn't a Socialist republic. The article doesn't contain even the number of people. Xx236 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Merge

I don't agree with the (anonymous) suggestion that the article should be merged with one of the history articles. DK as a party was around for a lot longer than 1975-79. I've made this point over at Cambodia under Pol Pot as well. If there are no objections, I'll lose the ugly merge template. Paxse 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just killed a second merge tag - what is it about this article that says - MERGE ME! Paxse 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is very short, and explains nothing about the country which the larger Cambodia under Pol Pot doesn't. I added the tag because I recently added the former country infobox to several of the articles for the former Cambodian states, and found two for this period. The Pol Pot one is much longer and I don't see why there should be a stub sized one here as well. Also, excuse me not saying this beforehand, it was two in the morning when I added the tag and I must have forgotten. Bnynms 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the answer - because the article is short it should be merged with an article on a similar (but not identical) topic? My point is that WP:MERGE says that you should place the merge tag on both source and destination pages and then explain your reasons on the talk page. So how about checking the talk page next time to save us both this mucking about? Paxse 19:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) Oh joy, another merge tag - Why me Lord? Paxse 11:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, why you? I agree this should be merged, this article is a stub identical in scope with Cambodia under Pol Pot (1975-1979). If no one but Paxse disagrees, I'm merging this page to CuPP. - ∅ (∅), 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

...in fact, most of this article doesn't even deal with Democratic Kampuchea but with Cambodia under Vietnamese occupation (1979-1989). - ∅ (∅), 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a state that existed between 1975 and 1979 and was also the recognised name for Cambodia by the rest of the world. It should be the main article. Cambodia under Pol Pot is a subset of this. Why not merge the other article into this one?--AssegaiAli (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed!

This comment "Following Pol Pot's invasion of Vietnamese territory in 1979 (with Chinese and American aid, which consisted of supplies and weapons)," definitely needs to be cited, as considering China was a major ally of North Vietnam and America had passed legislation keeping them out of SE Asia (not to forget the complete cutting of ties between Cambodia and the Western World), it seems extremely unlikely they would have directly helped the KR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.135.106 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since that POV comment has no known factual source, or logic, we can consider it TE and revise it as such. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why 'Kampuchea'?

I was wondering why the name 'Kampuchea' was chosen. If anyone knows, I think the explanation should be put into the article. Does it have anything to do with the tribe of, I think it was, 'Champu'? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The meaning is "sons of Kambu" from memory, but it is under some historical debate. Checkout Kambuja for some more info. Paxse (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

French and Vietnamese

Why have the French and Vietnamese names in the first sentence (or at all)? (And why not Chinese, Russian or Yiddish?) —Babelfisch (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a damn good question - they're gone! Paxse (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Socialist Republic ?

The constitution doesn't say anything about socialism.Xx236 (talk) 11:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Population ?

How many?Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question - no census was held during the DK period and due to the war no census was held elsewhere in the country where DK were not in control - it may be unanswerable. Cambodia held no census from 1960 until 1998 - a damn long time.Paxse (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Such information should be included into the article.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC) The article doesn't inform about the genocide.Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a word about genocide?

The most infamous act by the Khmer Rough was the genocide of millions, yet not a single word is mention (or even linked to the other related pages)? --Donny TH (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why call the country "democratic" when it clearly wasn't? Irony?

Should there be a mention about the irony of this name? "Democratic" implies an election-oriented government system, and one that is based on freedom of speech and prosperity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.98.159 (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is common practice among Communist nations to put Democratic or People's Republic in the official name of the country, such as People's Republic of China or Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany) or Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Real Democracies typically just say "Republic of." In this case, the official title is typical of Communist-oriented countries (tho most communists would probably be embarrassed by what happened at this time. 97.113.74.253 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist History

I see User:Paul_Siebert has decided the Khmer Rouge were not Communist, Please provide the source which states they were not. As there are hundreds of sources which say they were. The Communist Khmer Rouge The Communist Khmer Rouge the communist government of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge All scholarly sources all say the same thing mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although KR are sometimes labelled as Communists, it would be oversimplification to describe them as Communists sensu stricto. The sources provided by me demonstrate that persuasively. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please provide them as requested. mark nutley (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources are in the article and on this talk page. Please, read the thread in full.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You know were they are, please post them here or i will assume you do not in fact have any source which says the Khmer Rouge were not communist mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge party flag, btw.

I find the wording "Although KR are sometimes labelled as Communists" a bit funny, considering that the "sometimes labelled" included the KR (i.e. the Communist Party of Kampuchea) themselves. Furthermore, CPK was recognized as a brotherly party by other communist parties in the southeast asian region. For example, it retained a close relationship with the Communist Party of Thailand during the DK period.

On Wikipedia, this type of debates pop up now and then, on whether a political party represents the true essence of an ideological doctrine. It has been argued that the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova is not a truely communist party, for example. Another example are various edits by UDSS (talk · contribs), that seeks to remove mentions of communism and Marxism, to substitute with nationalism. The problem is that Wikipedia cannot really act as a judge on who is a truely kosher Marxist, Catholic, Liberal or Conservative. In general descriptions, we have to really heavily on self-identification. The Communist Party of Kampuchea was formed by a core educated in revolutionary Marxism in Paris, they built up a movement in Cambodia on Marxist-Leninist lines with a united front tactic (and were universally supported, at least in rhetoric, by the entire world communist movement at some point), employed Marxist symbols and vocabulary, and it is reasonable to assume that the political thinking of the leaders of the movement was in fact heavily (albeit not entirely) shaped by Marxist orthodoxy. The fact that there are dissidenting voices in the academic community is interesting, and their opinions can be mentioned in the CPK article, but should not block usage of the word 'communist' in the lead. --Soman (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nazi identified themselves as a socialist workers' party. I am not sure if anybody takes such self-identification seriously. In addition, these are you speculations, whereas the reliable sources present more complex picture.

Re: "and were universally supported, at least in rhetoric, by the entire world communist movement at some point" They were strongly condemned by the USSR, which, along with Vietnam, played a key role in terminating KR's genocide.-

Re: "but should not block usage of the word 'communist' in the lead" It is used, although not in a first sentence. -Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The is a core difference here. The NSDAP presented itself as, and was, a National Socialist party. They always maintained that National Socialism was distinct from Social Democracy or Marxism. As per "at some point", it obviously does not refer to 1978. The struggle against US control of Cambodia did get at least some degree of verbal support from the world communist movement at large. The Indochinese communist movement was vacilliating between pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese positions for some time, and the Communist Party of Kampuchea also included pro-Soviet/pro-Vietnamese elements (who were later purged during DK period). --Soman (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So were all agreed that the KR were in fact a communist party and as such this should be reflected in the lede? mark nutley (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point it is not necessary. I've provided enough evidence that DK was clearly a communist regime:

1. The influence of Maoism and the writings of Marx and Lenin, and past associations with the Stalinist French Communist Party. Source Source

2. Upon coming to power they abolished private property, religion and markets. Source

3. Much of the killing was motivated by revenge against rich "oppressors". Source

Forget the pointless edit war switching "totalitarian" to "communist" and back again ad nauseam. The facts speak for themselves. If anything, the KR party flag should be added to the article as the final coup de grâce to this revisionist nonsense.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

By discussing what the facts speak we step into the realm of original research. Let's better speak what the sources tell. For instance, in his analytical article specially devoted to this subject Matthew Edwards states :

"In the post-Cold War environment, however, with the breakdown of strictly aligned political blocs, it is generally accepted that “the most important intellectual [foreign influence] was probably the Cultural Revolution in China”. The question of material Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge prior to 1975 is still somewhat murky, but the ideological influences are much clearer. It is known that Pol Pot visited China during the early stages of the Cultural Revolution and that some of the measures he witnessed – the partial evacuation of cities, ‘storming attacks’ on economic problems, the abolition of differential military ranks – were later hallmarks of Khmer Rouge Kampuchea. In addition to Maoist policies, however, Pol Pot and some of the Khmer Rouge leadership gathered a wide range of ideas from their time in France, including European Marxism and Stalinism. (...)

Khmer nationalism, which formed an important part of Khmer Rouge ideology, coupled these foreign influences with indigenous Cambodian ideas and traditions. “No revolutionary ideology is entirely imported, and regardless of the substantial intellectual debts owed to Mao, Amin, Fanon and perhaps Stalin, the Khmer Rouge’s concept of total national independence springs primarily from the centuries-old Khmer fear of foreign invasion rather than from any twentieth-century foreign ideology”.

Despite the Khmer Rouge being allied with the Vietnamese Communists, there was an ambivalent relationship at best between the two parties – with the ancient traditional hatred and antipathy between the two states and peoples being only marginally suppressed. Khmer nationalism – and by extension, anti-Vietnamese feeling – was an important component of the ideology of the guerrilla forces.

On a theoretical level, the promotion of hatred for an external enemy – and internal, in the form of the intellectuals, urban population and the ethnically Sino and Viet populace – linked the Khmer Rouge with the tactics that were often employed by totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian theory depicts the need for ‘an enemy’ for the state and people to focus on. As with the Jews in Nazi Germany and the Kulaks in Stalin’s Russia, the targeting of an enemy who could be blamed for the ills of the country gained the Khmer Rouge support.

Though the scale was much larger, the methods used by the Khmer Rouge were not without precedent in Cambodian history, with accounts existing of extreme violence amongst the peasantry towards outsiders and further accounts of violence perpetrated by the Cambodian Issaraks during the 1940s and 1950s. “Arbitrary violence was still part of the experience of many rural Cambodians in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s”.31 The political climate during the Sihanouk and Lon Nol years was one where violence was regularly employed as a legitimate tool by the state. Thus, the generalization that the violence of the Khmer Rouge had its basis in Cambodian culture and history can be sustained if the other influences on the Khmer Rouge ideology are taken into account." (Matthew Edwards, The rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia: internal or external origins? Asian Affairs (2004) 35: 1, 56 — 67).

Look, similar to Fein, who dissects this complex issue in details, Edwards gives a full picture and avoids using Cold war era propaganda cliches. --Paul Siebert (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

On a theoretical level That is theory not fact. You are the only one here who seems to think the the KR were not communist with plenty of sources saying otherwise, there is a consensus here to call the KR what they were, which is communist. Any further edit warring by you against this consensus will result in a request to ANI mark nutley (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "By discussing what the facts speak we step into the realm of original research. Let's better speak what the sources tell." Nice try. These facts are backed up by scholarly citations.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We both know what's going on here. There is a strong attempt by leftists and Marxists to downplay, to a ridiculous extent, the Communist nature of Democratic Kampuchea. It used to be that they would simply deny the extent of KR atrocities as "Western propaganda" (i.e. Noam Chomsky, Gareth Porter, etc.) and play the moral equivalence game of "oh well, capitalists and western nations have done bad things, too." But as details of the killing spree trickled out, it became impossible to whitewash the genocide, which is second only to Hitler's Holocaust, so they have switched gears and now say, "but, but, but... they weren't even really communists at all - but fascists." That's the game being played, and I grow tired of it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with you C J, it is in my opinion obscene. Hell you should look through the mass killings under communist regimes article talk page (if you haven't already) Same old tired arguments. I shall replace communist into the lede later as i am currently unable to revert PS`s last revert of me mark nutley (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By discussing what the facts speak we step into the realm of original research. Let's better speak what the sources tell. For instance, in his analytical article specially devoted to this subject Matthew Edwards states :

"In the post-Cold War environment, however, with the breakdown of strictly aligned political blocs, it is generally accepted that “the most important intellectual [foreign influence] was probably the Cultural Revolution in China”. The question of material Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge prior to 1975 is still somewhat murky, but the ideological influences are much clearer. It is known that Pol Pot visited China during the early stages of the Cultural Revolution and that some of the measures he witnessed – the partial evacuation of cities, ‘storming attacks’ on economic problems, the abolition of differential military ranks – were later hallmarks of Khmer Rouge Kampuchea. In addition to Maoist policies, however, Pol Pot and some of the Khmer Rouge leadership gathered a wide range of ideas from their time in France, including European Marxism and Stalinism. (...)

Khmer nationalism, which formed an important part of Khmer Rouge ideology, coupled these foreign influences with indigenous Cambodian ideas and traditions. “No revolutionary ideology is entirely imported, and regardless of the substantial intellectual debts owed to Mao, Amin, Fanon and perhaps Stalin, the Khmer Rouge’s concept of total national independence springs primarily from the centuries-old Khmer fear of foreign invasion rather than from any twentieth-century foreign ideology”.

Despite the Khmer Rouge being allied with the Vietnamese Communists, there was an ambivalent relationship at best between the two parties – with the ancient traditional hatred and antipathy between the two states and peoples being only marginally suppressed. Khmer nationalism – and by extension, anti-Vietnamese feeling – was an important component of the ideology of the guerrilla forces.

On a theoretical level, the promotion of hatred for an external enemy – and internal, in the form of the intellectuals, urban population and the ethnically Sino and Viet populace – linked the Khmer Rouge with the tactics that were often employed by totalitarian regimes. Totalitarian theory depicts the need for ‘an enemy’ for the state and people to focus on. As with the Jews in Nazi Germany and the Kulaks in Stalin’s Russia, the targeting of an enemy who could be blamed for the ills of the country gained the Khmer Rouge support.

Though the scale was much larger, the methods used by the Khmer Rouge were not without precedent in Cambodian history, with accounts existing of extreme violence amongst the peasantry towards outsiders and further accounts of violence perpetrated by the Cambodian Issaraks during the 1940s and 1950s. “Arbitrary violence was still part of the experience of many rural Cambodians in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s”.31 The political climate during the Sihanouk and Lon Nol years was one where violence was regularly employed as a legitimate tool by the state. Thus, the generalization that the violence of the Khmer Rouge had its basis in Cambodian culture and history can be sustained if the other influences on the Khmer Rouge ideology are taken into account." (Matthew Edwards, The rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia: internal or external origins? Asian Affairs (2004) 35: 1, 56 — 67).

Look, similar to Fein, who dissects this complex issue in details, Edwards gives a full picture and avoids using Cold war era propaganda cliches. --Paul Siebert (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

On a theoretical level That is theory not fact. You are the only one here who seems to think the the KR were not communist with plenty of sources saying otherwise, there is a consensus here to call the KR what they were, which is communist. Any further edit warring by you against this consensus will result in a request to ANI mark nutley (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "By discussing what the facts speak we step into the realm of original research. Let's better speak what the sources tell." Nice try. These facts are backed up by scholarly citations.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We both know what's going on here. There is a strong attempt by leftists and Marxists to downplay, to a ridiculous extent, the Communist nature of Democratic Kampuchea. It used to be that they would simply deny the extent of KR atrocities as "Western propaganda" (i.e. Noam Chomsky, Gareth Porter, etc.) and play the moral equivalence game of "oh well, capitalists and western nations have done bad things, too." But as details of the killing spree trickled out, it became impossible to whitewash the genocide, which is second only to Hitler's Holocaust, so they have switched gears and now say, "but, but, but... they weren't even really communists at all - but fascists." That's the game being played, and I grow tired of it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with you C J, it is in my opinion obscene. Hell you should look through the mass killings under communist regimes article talk page (if you haven't already) Same old tired arguments. I shall replace communist into the lede later as i am currently unable to revert PS`s last revert of me mark nutley (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "There is a strong attempt by leftists and Marxists to downplay" Commenting on a contributor, not a contribution, is hardly compatible with WP policy. Please, consider to self-revert. With regard to the rest, let me notice that I do not claim your sources are politically biased anti-Communist, and I don't call you anti-Communist or fascist.
IMO your problem is that you simply oversimplify the issue and make redundant stress on the Communist component of the events. By contrast to the sources you provide (btw, typing "Radical+Left-wing+Chinese+Communist+Underpinnings+of+Cambodian+Communism" has more traits of cherry picking than the search I do), I prefer to rely on articles in peer-reviewed journals and do much more neutral search (e.g. Khmer+Rouge+ideology). In connection to that, let me remind you that my edits also are supported by citations found in reliable sources, and these sources tell that the issue is much more complex than you try to represent. In addition to detailed analysis I quoted above, let me provide other opinions on the subject:

"The particular combination of peasant ideology and racism is also found in other genocidal regimes as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Nazis in Germany." (Philip Verwimp. Development ideology, the peasantry and genocide: Rwanda represented in Habyarimana's speeches. Journal of Genocide Research, Volume 2, Issue 3 November 2000 , pages 325 - 361)

"As I noted in the introduction, Cambodian society was radically transformed during DK: Buddhism was banned, the family unit undermined, socioeconomic activity communalized, and the political and administrative structure revamped (Chandler 1991; Jackson 1989; Ebihara 1990). Traditional forms of hierarchy were broken down during this process of radical change. In keeping with their goal of creating a peasant-based communist country, the Khmer Rouge claimed that DK was to be an egalitarian society and enacted a number of policies to achieve this end." (Alexander Laban Hinton. Why Did You Kill?: The Cambodian Genocide and the Dark Side of Face and Honor. The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Feb., 1998), pp. 93-122)

In connection to that, let me remind you that "peasant based communism" is not Marxism, this is a doctrine that emerged independently many times during human history before Marx.

Summarising all said above I conclude:

1. That KR ideology stemmed from three sources: ultra-leftist views (significantly affected by Maoism), ultra-nationalist (rightist) and Khmer traditions of revenge (the latter has no connection to Marxism);
2. Although this ideology was definitely ultra-totalitarian, it can hardly be described by a single word "Communist";
3. The KR ideology is better described by the words: "which made the Khmer Rouge regime reminiscent of both radical Communism and national socialism, or fascism", which is already in the article.
   

I expect to obtain polite and respectful comments on that, as well as some concrete discussion of the sources I use.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no interest here in your wp:or per the consensus here and your obvious failure to realize the obvious i have now reverted your change. Please seek consensus here before you try to rewrite history again with fringe theorys, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus has been achieved here because my arguments have not been addressed and non-reliability of my sources has not been proven. WP is not a democracy, so bare majority of votes (some of which can be easily disregarded since they are not supported by any good sources) by no means is consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The three editors who have commented here have all presented reliable sources which clearly state the KR were communist, you have presented fringe theorys and no source saying the KR were totalitarian, until you do (and i mean you`ll require more than one to prove it is not fringe) then we use what the sources say, that they were communist mark nutley (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you and with your revert. We have a consensus of users here (you, C.J.Griffin, me, it seems that Soman, too) - besides having scholarly consensus. Paul should stop forcing his own synthesis into the article and start doing sth more constructive. If Paul really thinks the KR were Nazis as much as they were communists (Maosits), he should find sources that clearly say so and explain such a phenomenon, a few cherrypicked quotes to suit his agenda of portraying the KR “Maoist hysteria” (quotation from the Soviet media 1979) as fascist/nazi is a highly POV editing. Cheers, Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "a few cherrypicked quotes to suit his agenda of portraying the KR “Maoist hysteria” (quotation from the Soviet media 1979) as fascist/nazi is a highly POV editing" Let me point out that I supported a lift of the EEML members' ban assuming that all of them learned something. Sadly, but I was wrong regarding some of them.

With regard to the essence of the dispute, I believe I provided reliable sources that support the idea that Democratic Kampuches was: (i) totalitarian; (ii) influenced by Maoist ideas; (iii) strongly nationalistic; (iv) affected by a previous nation's experience of violence and revenge. I believe I was able to convey all of that by using the term "totalitarian" in the first sentence and explaining that Khmer Rouge regime reminiscent of both radical Communism and national socialism, or fascism later.

By contrast, my opponent try to make unneeded stress on one of the factors affecting KR. IMO, that is not what reliable sources say. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Paul Siebert is attributing too much weight to the views of some authors calling Democratic Kampuchea fascist. Tertiary sources like paper encyclopedias are a great way to establish what the concensus view is on a topic.

I found this source "World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1" which has an entry for Democratic Kampuchea :[1]

It states at the beginning: "some have viewed their brand of socialist nationalism as fascistic" but concludes: "Heder (2004) convincingly demonstrates that the single most important influence on KR doctrine and organisational structure was, in fact, the Vietnamese communists themselves. In the final analysis, several typical features of fascist regimes - as qualified protection for private property, state toleration of a national regilion, and an express rejection of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism in all its variants - were not in evidence during Democratic Kampuchea, and the regime cannot, as such, be considered fascist"

Another source "The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right"[2] says of Pol Pot: "His ultra-Marxism was combined with Khmer nationalism......Pol Pot's system had some fascist-like features but was essentially an extreme form of Communism" 118.208.247.90 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, that is the issue. You present an idea. We do not present ideas, nor do we engage in research. We use what the sources say. You are presenting fringe ideas here, the mainstream as has been shown to you is they were communist, please stop wasting peoples time with this mark nutley (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that some sources are unilaterally claimed fringe. The sources presented by me have been wetted by scholarly community, have been extensively cited[3], and that is sufficient to state that they are not fringe. Of course, these sources may represent a significant minority views, however, even in that case they must be represented in the lede. Since more direct and indirect references have been made to the linkage between KR and Communism than to the nationalistic roots of their ideology, the balance is already shifted to greater emphasis of the former. Therefore, I can conclude that, even if the POV I advocate is a significant minority POV (although I wouldn't say so based on the analysis of peer-reviewed publications), the balance is observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, 38 hits including citations? Hardly a significant minority compared to the amount calling the KR communist. Sorry but it is certainly a fringe theory and undue for the lede mark nutley (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"In the final analysis, several typical features of fascist regimes - as qualified protection for private property, state toleration of a national religion, and an express rejection of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism in all its variants - were not in evidence during Democratic Kampuchea, and the regime cannot, as such, be considered fascist." Hammer. Nail. Head. I think we can put this debate to bed now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided by me are published in peer-reviewed journals and widely cited, so they are not fringe. I sustained my burden of evidences. If someone wants to prove the sources are fringe (s)he should follow a standard procedure outlined in WP policy. Until it has been done, any attempts to rise this issue again is a disruptive behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources provided by me and everyone else are published in peer-reviewed journals and widely cited. And there are far more of them. Your sources are fringe as they are small in number and not as widely cited as you seem to believe. Your link above has 38 hits including citations, that`s not a lot paul as well you know, I`m sorry but your continued persistence in this is disruptive, and tendentious please just give it up, there is a consensus here which is against you mark nutley (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Democratic Kampuchea COA.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Democratic Kampuchea COA.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources to bolster the article

If you look on the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia's website, you'll find documents referred to as "closing orders". They contain lots of factual allegations against the various defendants on trial. Could they be used as sources to bolster some of the facts in the article?

--The Historian (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Communist

There is one reference that the regime was "Communist". However, there are those who argue otherwise: see the work of the genocide scholar Helen Fein, who called the regime "national socialist". It did have a monarch at the start, and it's a funny sort of Communism that has a monarch. Don't you think that we should either remove the "Communist" label or start a section detailing views on whether it was Communist or not. Epa101 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It did have a monarch at the start - yeah, but don't forget the 'monarch' was in fact a captive, that he was revered by peasant masses and that his foolish support for KR and acceptance of the figurehead role in early 1970s had been one of the main factors in KR victory in 1975. A figurehead monarch or no monarch, the essence of a country's social structure lies (according to Marxists) in economic relations. Those relations were hardcore communist, I'd say the most communistic that have been on the earth, with no money in circulation (just as Marx had dreamt of!), next to zero private property (sth that not even Stalin had succeeded in establishing) etc. There are hundreds of scholarly sources arguing the regime was communist, and those cannot be undone by one or two protocommunist fringe sources that say everything undesirable is simply 'fascism' or 'nazism' (in the USSR, the Khmer Rouge regime was referred to as 'the reactionary clique of Pol Poth - Ieng Sary', or as 'fascist', with no-one explaining, how this regime was 'reactionary' or 'fascist' in nature). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote:

"The KR's drive to create a new society, purified racially and ethnically, is ascribed by Becker both to communism and to native fascism. They were moved, she says, both by "fear of racial extinction and a corollary belief in its [Khmer] cultural if not racial superiority" (1986:16). Fascism, she asserts, was the goal of both Lon Nol and Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), the former viewing salvation in the past and the latter in the future. "Both leaders also encouraged fascism's by-products-racism and xenophobia" (1986:136)."

from the source cited in the article may be helpful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This article has been published in a scholarly source, the author however is by no means a representative of some academic consensus [4]. It is just personal opinions of one researcher, hence I changed it so the intro would not merely reflect one particular opinion. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this. Paul is clearly cherry-picking his sources in order to rewrite history and paint the Khmer Rouge as some sort of fascist/Nazi organization. But the group led by Pol Pot were not in Paraguay being indoctrinated by exiled Nazis and writings such as Mein Kampf, but instead were in France, where they WERE influenced by the writings of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and were even members of the Stalinist French Communist Party. Further influence, according to researcher Etcheson, came from other revolutionaries, such as Maximillien Robespierre. Source And regarding the killings, it is noted here that ethnic motives were "additional" and is noted here that "disproportionate revenge" against the "rich and powerful oppressors" (i.e class enemies) motivated much of the killing. Yes, the Khmer Rouge were indeed xenophobic, but as genocide researcher Daniel Goldhagen explains, this was because they believed that only the ethnic Khmer were "the one authentic people capable of building true communism." (Worse Than War, 2009, pg 207)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, by typing "Helen Feil" you hardly can find anything about "Helen Fein". Here [5] are correct google scholar results;

Secondly, Fein's works are used by your anti-Communist colleagues quite extensively in the Mass killings under Communist article, and this caused no objection so far;

Thirdly, that is an explanation of how I found Fein's works: since some of my opponents extensivelly referred to Fein, I just decided to look what she writes in actuality, and upon reading I found something interesting;

Fourthly, by no mean can that be interpreted as "cherry-picking". In any event, to throw such an accusation, one has to have a serious ground. I doubt it would be possible to provide such a ground. In that situation, the most reasonable solution would be to apologise. Just striking though the inappropriate comment would be sufficient;

Fifthly, I presented two sources as a support for my edits, not just one;

Sixthly, the text provided by me sounds quite reasonable, taking into account that (i) although formally Marxist, KR ideology considered peasantry as the major and sole driving force of the revolution, which is quite impossible in classical Marxism-Leninism; (ii) KR were extreme nationalists, if not racists, which is also impossible for Marxists; (iii) they were strongly condemned by the leading Communist power, the USSR, and deposed by the leading regional Communist power, Vietnam, whereas the "capitalist" Western powers continued to recognize, and even partially support KR even after 1979.

All of that makes my edits quite justified and supported by what reliable sources say. Consider to self-revert or to propose the new version of the text where all my comments are taken into account.

Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Fein's works are used by your anti-Communist colleagues quite extensively in the Mass killings under Communist article." Irrelevant. I'm not disputing her entire piece, just how it is being used here: to state that the Khmer Rouge were more a fascist outfit than a Communist one. The scholarly consensus is clearly in the other direction.

Re: "by no mean can that be interpreted as "cherry-picking". In any event, to throw such an accusation, one has to have a serious ground. I doubt it would be possible to provide such a ground. In that situation, the most reasonable solution would be to apologise." You're right. I should have kept that to myself. I retract that statement.

Re: "I presented two sources as a support for my edits, not just one;" Do you mean Alexander Laban Hinton's "A Head for an Eye: Revenge in the Cambodian Genocide"? He's the same contributor to the citations I provided on the killings primarily being motivated class revenge against "oppressors" (clearly a communist concept - Lenin stated during the Red Terror that they were "oppressing the oppressors"). Given the title of the book, it appears he's making the same argument here as well.

Re:"the text provided by me sounds quite reasonable, taking into account that (i) although formally Marxist, KR ideology considered peasantry as the major and sole driving force of the revolution, which is quite impossible in classical Marxism-Leninism; (ii) KR were extreme nationalists, if not racists, which is also impossible for Marxists; (iii) they were strongly condemned by the leading Communist power, the USSR, and deposed by the leading regional Communist power, Vietnam, whereas the "capitalist" Western powers continued to recognize, and even partially support KR even after 1979." (i) Didn't Chairman Mao also consider the peasantry the sole driving force for revolution? Are you going to tell me that he wasn't a communist either? (ii) This kind of goes back to the previous point. No Communists followed Marx to the letter. For example, didn't he state that successful revolution would have to occur in the industrialized west and not in agrarian backwaters like Russia and China? Does that mean the USSR and the PRC were not "true" Communist regimes? It is noted that they were xenophobic Communists. And it has also been established that punishing oppressors and creating an egalitarian society were the driving forces behind the KR revolution, and they believed only they, ethnic Khmers, could achieve that. It is also well known that previous communist revolutions served as an inspiration for their own, and they have no connection that I know of to any kind of established fascist ideology. (iii) They were also supported by the Maoist and post-Maoist governments of the PRC, then the USSR's enemy. So it makes sense that they would go out of their way to condemn them. The Nixon administration also opened up relations with the Maoist PRC in 1972 precisely because they were antagonistic towards the USSR. So the fact the US gave some support to the KR, through the PRC i might add, doesn't really prove they weren't communists.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "to state that the Khmer Rouge were more a fascist outfit than a Communist one" You probably noticed that in my last version[6] both KR's hypostases were reflected equally (" which made the Khmer Rouge regime reminiscent of both radical Communism and national socialism, or fascism"). In addition, your opinion on what the scholarly consensus is on that account needs to be supported by reliable sources. I expect you to provide not numerous google hits for the keywords "Communists" and "Cambodia", but examples of detailed analysis (similar to what Fein made) of why KR were more Communists than fascists.

Re (i) Maoism is considered as a deep revision of Marxism, so it can be regarded as Communism only with reservations.

Re: (ii) "didn't he state that successful revolution would have to occur in the industrialized west and not in agrarian backwaters like Russia" ... and that is why Lenin (who was a very talented statistician, according to reliable sources) wrote his work ("Development of capitalism in Russia") demonstrating that Russia is a developed capitalist country. BTW, it was 6th by its GDP, and, if we do not take into account her colonies (which we usually don't do for, e.g. British Empire) Russian per capita GDP was also quite decent. The first major revision of Marxism was done by Stalin, then by Mao, so most serious scholars discuss each countries separately and try to avoid unneeded propaganda cliches. Again, since the effect of Communist ideology (mostly as a result of Pol Pot's encounter with French Communists in Paris) cannot be ignored, the fact that KR performed a deep revision of Marxism, were extreme nationalists, which is incompatible with genuine Marxism should be clearly stated in the lede.

The ideas you are trying to push are reminiscent of old oxymoron I found in a fiction book about Nazi Germany: "... these Jewish Bolshevist Cossacks". --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The Nixon administration also opened up relations with the Maoist PRC in 1972 precisely because they were antagonistic towards the USSR" Not only because of that. They were always much more positive towards China, than to the USSR, they also refused to see the bloody nature of Mao's regime (btw, thanks to Rummel this situation changed later).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Do you mean Alexander Laban Hinton's..." No. I mean Elisabeth Becker. Again I am waiting you to self-revert or to take other measures to compensate for POV introduced by you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The first major revision of Marxism was done by Stalin, then by Mao, . . . KR performed a deep revision of Marxism." This is pretty much the bottom line. A flawed, unworkable ideology is going to have to be "revised" again and again and/or enforced with ever greater ruthlessness in an attempt to make it work. Richard Pipes noted this in his excellent book, Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles, pg 154):

"These inherent flaws were acknowledged by many Communists, leading to various "revisionisms." To the true believers, however, the failures proved not that the doctrine was wrong but that it had not been applied with sufficient ruthlessness. Confirming Santayana's definition of fanatics as people who redouble their efforts after forgetting their aim, they went on killing sprees of mounting savagery. Thus Communism generated ever greater oceans of blood as it progressed from Lenin to Stalin, and from Stalin to Mao and Pol Pot'."

Re:"They were always much more positive towards China, than to the USSR, they also refused to see the bloody nature of Mao's regime." The USSR was our primary enemy in the Cold War. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they say. The atrocities of Stalin's regime, such as Katyn, didn't bust our alliance with the USSR during WWII.

Re: "to self-revert or to take other measures to compensate for POV introduced by you." You mean mentioning that the massacres were primarily motivated by class hatred and the influence of Maoism and the French Communist party on the Khmer Rouge? That's not POV, just facts backed up by scholarly sources.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "A flawed, unworkable ideology is going to have to be "revised" again and again" The fact that the theory is not working doesn't mean it is flawed. Newtonian mechanics doesn't work when speed approaches the speed of light. European and American democratic theories do not work in Central Asia, e.g. in Afghanistan. I would say, the inherent flaw of Marxism is that this theory is tempting to be implemented in the cases when it is absolutely inapplicable. Obviously, revision of Marxism was needed every time it was being applied to something it was not designed for. Marx (and Lenin) clearly stated: peasantry cannot be a social base for Communist society. Mao decided to implement Marxist doctrine in agrarian China - and that lead to dramatic revision of Marxism (and to tremendous casualties). Similarly, Pol Pot was warned about that danger by his Chinese colleague (Zhou Enlai)- and ignored it. Every thing, even very good and useful thing can be misused.

One way or the another, the article of Fein (a good, authoritative scholar, as the google scholars results show) dissects the Cambodian case in details. The word "Communist" is found there many times, but the word "Marxist" - only one time, whereas teh word "Marxism" is not found at all. The explanation for that is that Fein separates "Communist" states (which, according to her, "have evolved from the totalitarian archetype, and new types of states have emerged with many, but not all, characteristics of communist and fascist totalitarian states since World War II: e.g., socialist states in underdeveloped regions; Islamic fundamentalist states; praetorian regimes based on right-wing authoritarianism; and, most recently, ethnic-based authoritarians tates in the Balkans.) from the states where non-revised Marxian ideas are being implemented. Fein seems to leave the Marxist concept beyond the scope, because many other factors had actually affected Communist societies. For instance, most anti-Communists completely ignore the fact that most Communist societies (Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia etc.) emerged as a result of bloody civil wars. There societies that preceded these regimes were not "democratic" or partiarchal idyllic societies, and their problems (including some inresolvable contradictions) were inherited by new "communist" regimes. The attempts to apply Marxism there just exacerbated the problems and difficulties, not created them. One way or the another, since Fein's detailed analysis demonstrated that most events in communist and fascist countries can be explained without extensive references to flaws in Marx theory, we do not need them per Occam's razor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think C.J. Griffin has made good points, supported with sources, pointing out that no Communist regime followed Marx's thoughts and advice to the letter. The fact that Lenin started to build communism in a peasant country does not change the fact that he regarded himself as a communist and managed to implement many important Marxian dreams like expropriation of capitalists, abolishing private means of production etc. If Mao was not “true” Communist, then how about Tito with his “market socialism”? Marx emphasized that the economics are the basis, ideology + political system etc just make for the superstructure. Clearly, there have never been more communistic countries on earth than Khmer Rouge Kampuchea and Kim Il Sung's Korea, where not only that capitalists had been “expropriated” and private property in general had been brought close to nil, even money no longer paid any role in the countries (officially abolished in Kampuchea and de facto abolished in N.Korea, where you could only buy propaganda books with their money). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Miacek, I believe, after your previous mistake with Helen Feil, your post is supposed to contain a serious discussion of why the point of view of this very notable (as we all now see) scholar is irrelevant to the topic. If I understand correct, one of the Fein's point is that most Communist regimes in Asia and Africa (which committed most mass killings) have evolved from the societies with deep authoritarian traditions, so the onset of mass killings did not correlate with Marxism strongly. In addition, let me remind you that Chinese and Cambodian economy was based primarily on rise, which requires highly centralised state controlled irrigation system. The economic system of such a society was defined by Marx as a separate Asiatic mode of production. Marx didn't pay much attention to that and didn't study this concept extensively, so in actuality it is hard to claim that Pol Pot tried to apply Marx theory to his society, because no developed Marxist theory of Asian irrigation based agricultural society exist in actuality. Later Marxists (Lenin and others) fully ignored AMP preferring to stick with classical linear five stage scheme(M. J. K. Thavaraj. The Concept of Asiatic Mode of Production: Its Relevance to Indian History. Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 7 (Jul., 1984), pp. 26-34) so Leninism could not be applied to Cambodian society simply because it completely ignored societies of this type (probably, because European Marxists were preoccupied with the problems of their own continent). Similarly, Newtonian mechanics ignores relativistic effects, which does not make it wrong in the area where it is applicable. If someone decided to apply classical mechanics to the relativistic cases, the responsibility for all wrong results will be on him, not on Newton. I'll fix the redundant emphasis on Marxism and Communism if I'll get no serious arguments in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend..." That rule works for XIX century realpolitik and hardly works for such a liberal and humanistic state like the US. Ironically, the USSR and USA had never been formally at war against each other. They were opponents, not enemies. However, if you support a murderer (for whatever reason), you share a responsibility for his crimes. By supporting bloody Chinese or Cambodian regimes against (by that moment) moderately totalitarian Soviet Union, the US took a part of responsibility for killed Chinese or Cambodian people.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Fein's article, I can only rely on the citations you provided. However, I am aware of the scholarly consensus on Cambodia and am fully aware of the Communist theories of Communism being “wrongly” constructed in the USSR, China or Cambodia. As for your suggestion that authoritarian traditions of a particular country played a role - yes, suppose so. And yet this doesn't do away with the differences we see between E. Germany and the capitalist W.Germany, between two Koreas etc. We can clearly see the different effect the communist/socialist development of a particular society had compared with the capitalist way of development. But I do think we must concentrate here on Cambodia. If you do think Fein or other scholars argue Cambodia was fascist, not communist, you must explain this in detail, before going to revise the article in this manner. After all, the argument that the Soviet communism was somehow defective (Trotsky) does not conclude that Democratic Kampuchea was fascist, so these two ideas might be related but not much more. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, when reading some sourced parts of the article Under leadership of Pol Pot, cities were emptied, organized religion was abolished, and private property, money and markets were eliminated. An unprecedented genocide campaign ensued that lead to annihilation of about 20% of the country's population, with much of the killing being motivated by Khmer Rouge ideology which urged "disproportionate revenge" against rich and powerful "oppressors." you surely agree that such steps were much more in line with communist teachings, not fascism, which has its own enemies and has committed particular, fascist persecutions and mass killings. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided refs to Fein and Becker who state that KR regime was fascist, or national socialist (although used a term "Communist" as well). I can also give you other refs, e.g. Eric D. Weitz (Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29) who draws direct parallel between Nazi Germany and KR, but not with the USSR (which committed genocide, as well as many other non-Communist states, but was non-genocidal by its nature). I tried to reflect the content of these sources in my edits. All these sources are verifiable, and everyone can verify if I was correct. In connection to that, I am not sure what "scholarly consensus" do you mean.

All traits you listed (besides religion, which was not suppressed in Spain or Italy) are characteristic for fascism too. In addition, nationalism is something that has been explicitly claimed unacceptable by Marxist theory. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course the KR were communist to say they were not is just a lame attempt to shift the blame across to fascists. For every source you provide which says the KR were fascists i suspect i can provide far more telling the truth mark nutley (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, do that. However, remember, that, according to WP:V "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source". In other words, I expect your sources to be a peer-reviewed publications which analyse the issue in details and establish a deep connection between Cambodian genocide and Marxist doctrine. Numerous semi-propaganda book that claim the regime was Communist will hardly have a weight comparable with even a single Fein's article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, another source that I found in the article ( Nicholas A. Robins, Adam Jones. Genocides by the oppressed: subaltern genocide in theory and practice. Indiana University Press, 2009. p. 98) avoids using the terms "Marxist" or "Communist" to describe KR. The source states that they used Marxist phraseology ("oppressed classes", references to creation of communist utopia) to organise killing of rich and urban population by poor rural peoples, but it is not sufficient to call them Marxists. The source also claim that the stress was made on revenge. However, the essence of Marxism is hardly a revenge or just a call to kill somebody. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I find 'totalitarian' a more confusing term than 'communist'. There is extensive debate about the characteristics of the KR, on their rather unique positions on national question, etc., and there is no hinderance in having a section (preferably in the Communist Party of Kampuchea article, not here) on how different scholars characterized the KR. However, that debate does not block mentioning the fact that the KR formulated (at least up to the 1990s) their policies and ideology from a Marxist framework. Labelling them 'fascists' (essentially as a cognate of 'bad guys') distorts any reasonable understanding of what fascism constitutes and how fascist movements develop. --Soman (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It may distort, however, that is what the reliable sources state. With regard to "a more confusing term" the issue is not in clarity but in adequacy. The term "Communist" is not fully adequate, so more general "totalitarian" should be used with subsequent explanations of what concretely is meant under that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "totalitarians who are known to be communists and act as fascists?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

'It did have a monarch at the start' -no, it didn't. Ex-King Norodom Sihanouk was appointed to the post of 'President of the State Presidium'-i.e. President or Head of State-from 1975-1976. That didn't make him 'monarch' of Democratic Kampuchea. The fact he happened to be a monarch before that (and after from 1993) is irrelevant: 'President of the State Presidium' is not a monarchical or even a royal title or position.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with stub: Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)

Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No. The fact that Prince (former King) Norodom Sihanouk was Chairman of the State Presidium (de jure Head of State) of Democratic Kampuchea from 1975-1976 has absolutely no bearing on the name of the state, et cetera. Cambodia was styled 'Democratic Kampuchea' right from the outset, not the 'Kingdom of Cambodia' and the flag and emblem of Democratic Kampuchea that were used after 1976 by Democratic Kampuchea were used during the period 1975-1976 as well (please see the Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea from 1975.) Sihanouk was 'Chairman of the State Presidium' during this period, as opposed to King.

In essence, the Khmer Rouge enlisted the support of Sihanouk in an effort to bolster support for them amongst the mass of the peasantry, (which previously they majorly lacked) who viewed the King and Royal family, in whatever role they took, in almost god-like terms, and it worked. Cambodian peasants flocked to the Khmer Rouge in droves once they had Sihanouk's support.

All that aside however, it remains that the political entity which existed 1975-1976 was exactly the same as that which existed after 1976. Same name, same flag, same emblem, same constitution, same everything. The fact Sihanouk was it's (largely powerless) legal head of state during this period is irrelevant. Thus, the page you have created should be merged into the Democratic Kampuchea article.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, the Democratic Kampuchea infobox states "1976-1979" as the period of its existence, which I took as confirmation for the KoC's existence before 1976. The "|event_start =" establishment parameter is Fall of Phnom Penh, but the time parameters are "|date_start = 5 January |year_start = 1976". Does January 5 1976 refer to anything, or is it just completely erroneous? ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Cambodia 1975-76 merge discussion

See also discussion on its talk page. There's nothing to merge from there, it should just be redirected (or perhaps even deleted). Instead, there should be a description on how the Khmer Rouges ruled in coalition with the GRUNK at the beginning and Sihanouk was head of state. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on Talk:Kingdom_of_Cambodia_(1975–76)#growing stub to merge Kingdom_of_Cambodia_(1975–76) into this article, which I did. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

@Guy Macon: and 124.148.222.41 : I see you reverting each other from now more than one week in order to state if Democratic Kampuchea religion was atheism, state atheism, none or nothing to fill. Would it be possible to express here your arguments for and against any options and wait for the feedbacks of other contributors before continuing to modify the article? Thank you for your cooperation. --Sundgauvien38 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Saying "none", with "state atheism" in parentheses afterwards as an explanation (provided this is supported by sources), seems a good solution to me. (And bad form to castigate others for edit warring without mentioning that you were part of it yourself...) W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion (search for the phrase "Advice sought regarding" implementation" -- its in arbitrary section break 007)

More importantly, look at how much support "None (atheism)" got in the survey, and note that almost none of the comments said it should be avoided for BLP reasons, instead arguing that it should be avoided in all articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That discussion was specifically only about BLPs. What are your arguments for omitting it in this article? (And for continuing to edit-war when this discussion clearly shows you don't yet have a majority for your position?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Expanding it to include political parties was discussed in the RfC section I referenced above. State atheism is not a religion, and the overwhelming consensus at that RfC was against using "Religion: None (atheism)" in any infobox, not just BLPs. I wrote the RfC, but as often happens the consensus was clearly in favor of a something that I failed to include in my RfC, so of course I am now following the clear consensus whether I agree with it it not. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that there was any consensus that would apply to this article. There seems to have been a good suggestion that with country infoboxes the "religion" parameter should be made more specific (does it mean the predominant religion, the state religion, or what), but I don't see any gain to readers in omitting this nugget of information entirely. Does anyone have any actual arguments in favor of doing so (and no need to repeat that "state atheism is not a religion"; everybody realizes that)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you realize that, why don't you realize that non-religions don't belong in the religion section of infoboxes?

Consider the following comments from the "Support [Omit parameter]" section of the RFC:

• "Atheism and similar are not religions, so why are we trying to reflect them in the religion parameter? We don't use "= none" for all parameters that are not applicable to a particular person (monuments = none?); we omit those parameters."
• "As stated all too often they are not religions and use of the term none is not needed. There are numerous fields in the infobox that are not used when there isn't info to put in them. There is no reason to single this one out by using the term none."
• "Omit the parameter since atheism and agnosticism are not religions."
• "Theism and agnosticism are not religions. If a parameter isn't applicable, omit it. Simple."
• "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: key facts should be stated in a succinct manner, no need to show a non-fact."
• "If the person has no spouse, the box doesn’t say Spouse: None. No children doesn’t result in Children: None, or Children: None (hates kids). How is this different? "
• "'Atheist' should never be in the religion field."
• "Omit the parameter. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, so this line in the infobox does not apply"
• "It is asinine that this is even a question. We don't use fields when they don't apply."
• "Omit the parameter, as you would with any other non-applicable parameter. There is no reason to create an exception for Religion - since neither Atheism nor Agnosticism are religions, they shouldn't be put in the Religion field."
• "Atheism is the absence of religious belief. Omission of the parameter indicates the absence of religious belief,"
• "I cannot think of another instance where we would explicitly list someone's lack of trait."
• "we don't normally use "none" in any other infobox field and I cant see why this is an exception."
• "We don't include (for example) honorific_suffix=none, monuments=none, agent=none, notable_works=none, television=none, criminal_charge=none, awards=none, favourite_colour=none, football_team_supported=none (OK, I made the last two up, but they are about as "mandatory" as religion) etc, so why should religion be any different."
• "Surely we can be more editorially professional than listing a non xxxxxxxx person in a xxxxxxxx parameter. We are supposed to be striving for editorial excellence, not an inexorable dumbing down of the project."
• "Omit the parameter just seems common sense and in line with how non-applicable infobox parameters are generally handled."

Please note that every single person I quote above had a choice to choose "Religion: None (atheist) and rejected that option in favor of deleting the parameter. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think some of those people understand the problem, at least not as it applies to this case, which was not the one they were considering. It simply seems to me interesting to note (assuming it is accurate to note) that "state atheism" was a property of this entity, just as it would be to note that it was an officially Muslim or Buddhist entity. Clearly this is a personal obsession of yours, while for me it is a rather trivial matter, so I don't propose to waste time discussing it further unless anyone else wants to, but it seems sad that information is being removed from Wikipedia for this kind of ideological (or pedantic, I'm not sure which) reason, without any consideration for the needs and interests of readers. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is no more a "personal obsession" than the thousands of pages where I changed "this and and that" to "this and that" were. It is simply fixing errors on Wikipedia pages. Making snide comments aimed at those of us who do a lot of error correcting across multiple pages is inappropriate behavior.

Aside from the fact that atheism is not a religion, countries do not believe of not believe anything, and thus cannot have a religion even if you mistakenly believe that atheism is a religion and that bald is a hair color.

I would like to see religion on these pages treated the way we treat it at England#Religion and Montana Province#Religion. Those pages give the reader a true understanding of the religion in those geographic areas in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"?

This has already been decided by consensus. See the closing summary at Request for Comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Kampuchea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728110739/http://www.dccam.org/Projects/Maps/Mapping.htm to http://www.dccam.org/Projects/Maps/Mapping.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

'Ideological influences' -section's neutrality

The section 'Ideological influences' has essay-esque and opinionated tone to it. Within the section's text itself Weasel claims such as "obvious" or "becoming clear" are attributed onto the topic. As the section has references, it would be noteworthy to confirm whether the sources themselves have claims formatted in exactly the same opinionated way than in the Wikipedia article. Vmp4523 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is of poor quality. [7] The ideology had Paris Stalinist/Marxist and Asian Maoist (also Thai) roots. The direct influence of the French revolution should be referenced. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Along similar lines the entire Explaining the Violence section appears to be sourced entirely from a single, badly-written university paper. I learn that "the KR constructed essentialised categories of identity which crystallised difference", which doesn't really explain anything. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Kampuchea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eccc.gov.kh/english/cabinet/courtDoc/635/20100726_Judgement_Case_001_ENG_PUBLIC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828075907/http://dccam.org/Projects/Genocide/DK_History_07.htm to http://www.dccam.org/Projects/Genocide/DK_History_07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328212757/http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm to http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm

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) 12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Explaining the Violence"

I'm concerned that content under the heading of 'explaining the violence' commits too much space to a particular author, with descriptor's like "groundbreaking" (this author does not have a wiki page). Don't want to delete it outright because there is some place for it, but it needs shortening, fitting into another section and neutralising the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.23.219 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit: On another part of the page it reads "Arguably his best known and most affecting documentary is S-21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine (fr.:S-21, la machine de mort Khmere rouge) in which he recuperates memory to represent speechless horror and thereby shatter silence. The film features two survivors of S-21 as they confront their former captors. With its unsettling re-enactments, S-21 allows viewers to observe how memory and time may collapse to render the past as present and by doing so reveal the ordinary face of evil."

This page needs a lot of editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.23.219 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Listing non-religions such as "Non-religious" or "State atheism" in the religion entries of infoboxes

This concerns the following edits:[8][9][10][11]

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

• 17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

• 11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all biographical infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.

Anyone is free to post a new RfC on this, but there is little or no cchance that the concensus of the Wikipedia community has changed. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Regime

We have a far-left activist and revionnist which refuse to add "Unitary marxist-leninist one-party totalitarian socialist republic" for the political regime. Obviously, it's just a form of negationnism which is quite usual for communists: deny the fact that Democratic Kampuchea was a communist state. It's totally absurd. To be clear: Democratic Kampuchea was a communist state, it's just an objective fact. It is recognize as it, there are no "discussion" about it on this talk page, and on the page about communist state, it is of course and naturaly part of the list. Pol Pot was a member and the leader of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, him and other members have studied in Paris with communist teachers at La Sorbonne. Impossible to deny this fact. Except if we are a far-left negationist! Far-left ideoligists deny the fact that Democratic Kampuchea was communist because the genocide is impossible to hide. So the strategy used by communists it to "decommunize" Kampuchea to say : "genocide of this totalitarian state has no links with communism". Typical revisionism used by marxist ideologists! So if they don't want to have the word "communist" on the infobox, we can add "marxist-leninist", it is the word used by 99% of communist regimes. On 99% of articles about communist/socialist state, we have "Unitary (or federal) marxist-leninist one-party socialist republic" (we can also add totalitarian of course), so there are no reason to do not have these informations about the Democratic Kampuchea. And seriously, it is not important to don't have the word "totalitarian" in the infobox because everybody knows that communism is a totalitarian ideology along nazism and fascism. The absence of this adjective on communist regimes just show the hypocrisy and the political correctness that ruled on wikipedia because some marxists student refuse to accept it and are offended. But deny the fact that Democratic Kampuchea was a communist/socialist state, it is more serious. Nobody deny this, except people like 12Vif12 because he is a young far-left student activist and a member of the "Red Party". There is consensus as the only person supporting the version which removes communist/socialist republic mention is him. He is the one only user who thinks that they alone constitute a "consensus", this is growing tiresome.

Communists denied the reality of communist dicatorship because they don't want to admit that their ideology failed miserably and killed 100 million people. I perfectly know the communist strategy : during a lot of years, they support communist regimes, denied the disaster and the atrocities of these totalitarian states, and when the regimes collapse and the crimes are impossible to hide, they suddenly said : "That wasn't true communism!" or "It's an American-Israeli conspiracy which destroy the communist revolution!". Perfect negationnist rethoric. Communism is totally understand, numbers of historian and economist have demonstrate the abursdity and the horror of this ideology, like nazism and fascism. Pol Pot was a communist, it's an objective and undeniable fact the worst atrocities took place because of a long-held plan to transform Cambodian society along communist lines. This plan was set out in the doctoral thesis of Pol Pot’s colleague Khieu Samphan in 1959, many years before the Vietnam Warspread to Cambodia. Secondly, the Khmer Rouge boasted that “we will be the first nation to create acompletely communist society,” hailed Mao as “the most eminent teacher… since Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin” and drew up a plan to “eliminate the capitalist class” in order to “construct socialism." (quotation from an historian, Karl D. Jackson in Cambodia: Rendez-vous with death, the first source of the article) Thirdly, The Khmer Rouge extermination campaign was not a “response to the violence of the imperial system,” – let alone an “understandable” one – but an attempt to impose a form of Maoism. There is no evidence whatsoever that US intervention in Cambodia was “designed” to bring about the mass extermination of the population by the communists. And for finish, speaking in 1977, State Department specialist Charles Twining expressly declined to give an estimate. When pressed, he merely offered a range of “thousands or hundreds of thousands” of executions. He attributed the deaths from disease and malnutrition not to the US but to the Khmer Rouge, who were “guilty of killing” their people by refusing medicines from abroad. Communists are not logical : they deny the fact that communist regimes were communist, but at the same time, why they spend their time to practice revionism about the crimes and the actions of these regimes?! Totally absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.239.79 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there actually editors on this page who still go along with Cambodian genocide denial? This is why I hated the 1970's. -------User:DanTD (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia into Democratic Kampuchea on the grounds of overlap. Klbrain (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

I think that the article Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia should be merged into this article, as they are about the exact same thing and I don't see any practical reason for them to be seperate. --73.82.167.45 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Support. Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia is just a fork of Democratic Kampuchea. --MarioGom (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Support: I don't see how this is even a question. Charles Essie (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Support: I have been drafting a merged article in my sandbox. Thoughts and comments would be appreciated. By the way, I do agree that Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia and Democratic Kampuchea are essentially the same thing.A22343 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Support Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@A22343: your merge draft looks like the best way forward. Klbrain (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist" "dictatorship" is an oxymoron

Dictatorships are not Marxist-Leninist, unless you've never put in honest effort to understand what Marxism-Leninism means. This article needs more work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.2.23.116 (talk • contribs) 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly an opinion. It appears to contradict Marxism–Leninism, which is well-sourced. If it's an opinion that has been expressed by notable authors, it might be worth mentioning with citations, but probably either on that article or Dictatorship of the proletariat. -- Beland (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)