Talk:Democratic Kampuchea

Old comment

This article has no mention of US, Thai and UN support to the Khmer Rouge against the Vietnamese-sponsored Cambodian government after the Khmer Rouge had been driven from power - this is both a serious gap in the history of Cambodia and also a serious NPOV problem. Given that the content in the article is taken from the Library of Congress Country Studies an omission of American assistance to the Khmer Rouge is perfectly understandable, nonetheless to maintain NPOV this needs to be radically revised. --Ce garcon 07:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved this comment here from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Politics. I'm leaving it up to more knowledgeable editors to figure out if it is a legitimate point that requires addressing in this or some other article. -- Beland (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of Democratic Kampuchea (1975–1979).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Roundel of Cambodia (1976–1979).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss the Subject, Not the Source

I am removing the italicised sentence under WP:BOLD (italics added): After establishing the historical and ideological context as the backdrop, Hinton delves deeper into the complexities of perpetrator motivation through using both macro- and micro-level analyses to uncover how ideology is linked to psychocultural processes. Under the Khmer Rouge, the encroachment of the public sphere into that which was once private space made constant group-level interactions. Within these spaces, cultural models such as face, shame, and honour were adapted to Khmer Rouge notions of social status and bound up with revolutionary consciousness. The italicised sentence does not actually deal with the subject of the article, Democratic Kampuchea, but with how the RS evaluated the subject. I cannot find a specific WP policy that addresses this situation, but I do not feel it is encyclopaedic wording. I am absolutely willing to be overruled on that belief, but please discuss it here before reverting. If you feel the sentence is critical to understanding Democratic Kampuchea, please explain why and (preferably) propose wording that would move the focus to the subject itself. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You should not be overruled because the lack of focus on the subject in this article is a larger problem. This article is less so about Democratic Kampuchea as a state and more so a narrative story about the events leading up to the Cambodian genocide and then an analysis of it. It's as if a major contributor read a few scholarly papers on the topic of the Cambodian genocide and decided to regurgitate it in this article. This article has no logical (specifically chronological) structure that other articles on states and polities have. Yue🌙 15:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

'Dispute of the "genocide" label' Section

Unlike the Hinton info above, I am unwilling to strike this section under WP:BOLD without discussion. However, I have some pretty strong feelings here: This entire section appears to be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The article itself, and virtually all RS that I've read, make it clear that the Khmer Rouge directly targeted the Cham and the Vietnamese- and Chinese-heritage Cambodians as ethnicities for extermination (the classical definition of genocide). The treatment of cosmopolitan, educated, Catholic, and bourgeois Cambodians fall directly into the modern, international definition of genocide as well, regardless of one commentator's hair-splitting apologia.

The Genocide article mentions this period of Khmer history 34 times, and the Cambodian Genocide article contains 221 RS, many of which appear to use the term specifically and directly. At best, this would belong in latter article, but I feel it absolutely does not belong here. Please share your thoughts. Barring some reasonable argument against such action, I'll remove the section on or after 17 June 2024. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)