Talk:Khmer Rouge
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khmer Rouge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 12 months ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the Rebecca Gidley quote a misquote?
[edit]Sorry, first attempt at this sort of thing (wiki edit). Anyways, this section stood out to me as odd:
> According to author Rebecca Gidley, the Khmer Rouge "almost immediately erred by implementing a Maoist doctrine rather than following the Marxist–Leninist prescriptions".
Briefly checking the source, it seems that Rebecca Gidley is perhaps describing the *public political position of the the KRP*, NOT Rebecca's own belief.
That is, the book section is saying (paraphrase) "[The KRP, in a quest for political legitimacy] claimed that the KR almost immediately erred by implementing a Maoist doctrine rather than following the Marxist–Leninist prescriptions". It is not saying, again paraphrase "I, the historian writing about this, believe that the KR erred by ... almost immediately erred by implementing a Maoist doctrine rather than following the Marxist–Leninist prescriptions" (this is the claim in the current wiki article.)
Someone should double check my thought process and remove the quote if I'm right, or whatever wiki people do, I'm not sure. Don't want to touch a super important article like this without knowing the proper protocol. But I think this is bad. 99.229.176.124 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, the PRK, not the KRP 99.229.176.124 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, actually, this whole section is kind of odd, right? I've never looked this closely at a wiki page, but basically the entire section (other than this misquote) is based on the Ben Kiernan source. I don't know if there's a way to "git blame" and see who wrote the section, but given the misquote, I'd be worried about balance / accuracy also. (this may be no big deal – I just don't know! maybe this is truly the only/best source on the ideology of the KR! but I think I should flag this, and I think people should be careful. Better safe than sorry!) 99.229.176.124 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Women, War and Peace
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2025 and 25 April 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cloé Navellier (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BethCV, JordanTaylor65.
— Assignment last updated by Mandifay (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
ideology in infobox
[edit]I just fixed an error in the ref field on "anti-communism" in the infobox, but raising the larger question here of the substance. As I understand it, Khmer Rouge is widely regarded and identified as a communist organization. The reference discusses Pol Pot in particular, and seems to discredit the idea that Pol Pot was a "true communist". However, an infobox label is not the right place to try to take one side of a "no true scotsman" type argument. So, I'm removing the "anti-communism" label and instead adding "communism". If folks want to discuss it & come to some better solution, then do it here (and make it consistent with the Pol Pot article, too, please). Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- This was the cited reference: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/khmerrouge.html
- Okay, I just realized there were at least one additional edit that that editor made. I reverted all edits. The edit is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khmer_Rouge&diff=1288152225&oldid=1287965604 and there is some additional commentary in the submission from the IP editor. I take it as a good faith edit, but the infobox is not the place for labels that are not conventionally agreed upon. I hope that editor will join on the talk page to discuss how to incorporate their contributions in the text of the article, and then, if adequately supported, appropriately nuanced labels can be used in the infobox. Lquilter (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- C-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in History
- C-Class vital articles in History
- C-Class socialism articles
- High-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- C-Class Cold War articles
- Mid-importance Cold War articles
- Cold War task force articles
- C-Class Cambodia articles
- Top-importance Cambodia articles
- WikiProject Cambodia articles
- C-Class Southeast Asia articles
- High-importance Southeast Asia articles
- WikiProject Southeast Asia articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
- Southeast Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- C-Class political party articles
- High-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors