Talk:Pol Pot/Archive 2

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

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 04:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Burial Place

The caption on the photo says "Grave of Pol Pot in Anlong Veng District of Prey Veng Province. But if you go to the articles for those pages, you'll see that the Along Veng district couldn't be further away from the Prey Veng Province and still be in Cambodia. So which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.82.30 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

tried to edit page on Pol Pot but was blocked twice.Is Wikipedia an American destroyer of History like Hollywood?

Wikipedia page on Pol Pot;life,death, Genocide,1.8million dead etc but no mention of USAF B-52`s bombing of Ho Chi Minh Trail and most of South Cambodia.Or of Nixon supporting Pol Pot militarily and financially and CIA Covertly against the North Vietnamese in revenge for America`s Defeat in the Vietnam War 1971-477,000 US Dead.Nixon turned a blind eye to Pol Pot`s Genocide and the Cambodians were only saved from more Torture and Death by the Vietnamese invasion and overthrow of America`s War Criminal.Pol Pot was the protected by UN/US TROOPS in the jungle from the NVA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaBellais2 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Find some other place to rant at, will you? The Wiki Talk Pages are for the legitimate discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles, not some soapbox for your irrational venting. Single Purpose Account? Hmmm ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Suicide

I have removed the confident assertion in the lede that Pol Pot committed suicide. It was cited to "Chan, Sucheng (2004). Survivors: Cambodian Refugees in the United States. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0252071799." The book is about Cambodians in the USA, not about the life of Pol Pot, and no page number is given. Pol Pot had been seriously ill for some time and his body was cremated without any autopsy being performed, so there is no way anyone can definitively say whether he died naturally or from an overdose (and even if it were the latter, we could say whether or not it was accidental, murder or suicide). Suffice it to say that there have been speculations that it may have been suicide or murder. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've noted that the source of the sucide claim was Nate Thayer. The article on Thayer properly states that it was speculation on his part, and Chandler's revised version of Brother Number 1 makes no definitive assertions. Other books equally confidently assert that he was murdered. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Candidates

>"In 1976, Pol Pot's régime reclassified Kampucheans into three groupings: as full-rights (base) people, as candidates and as depositees ...."

Could more information be included here about the "candidates"? This is a bit confusing. Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Pol Pot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pol Pots religious views

216.58.3.169 has made 2 undos: (-72)‎ . . (Changed the "Religion" info. in the bio. box's personal details sections to "None". Previous disagreements of him being buddhist or atheist aside, factually, if it is agreed as in the current revision that he was an atheist, atheism is not a religion) (-72)‎ . . (Undid revision 513087843 by Brunswicknic (talk) Atheism is a position on a singular issue exactly opposite deism (not theism, though it precludes it) & says nothing about morality/lifestyle) I have undone those undos for the following reasoning. Wikipedia lists Athiesm in the religion projects. Atheism is a stand on religion, and therefore to list his religion as none is to deny all atheists their standpoint on religion. As I said in my undo of anonymous's first undo "The box gives his religious position, if atheism is not about religion, what is it?" The statement about 'a singular issue' and lack of 'morality/lifestyle' of atheism is interesting, I believe it is the reflects a position of Anti-Atheism, of intolerance toward atheism. Any reading of atheist thinking, or even Wikipedia's atheism page would show this statement to untrue I believe the edits to this page are the result of a predetermined POV and do not reflect an understanding of the 'religion' info in the bio box, or of the philosophy of religion. Thank you 216.58.3.169 for editing in the category of atheist on this page Brunswicknic (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell cares what his religion was. He murdered millions of people. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


I have (and will continue to) undo Bunswicknic's classification of atheism as a religion on a tangentially related page to the concept(s).

Wikipedia lists Atheism as a -related portal- to the religion portal (though even if it didn't, it still wouldn't make you right, for multiple reasons).

Atheism is a stand on religion, and therefore to list his religion as none is to deny all atheists their standpoint on religion.

This is a complete non sequitur. You have just stated that an opinion/position on deism/religion, equates to being a religion.

That is utter-nonsense and is entirely invalid.

Your next statement is off-topic, but I will respond to it here anyway -

The statement about 'a singular issue' and lack of 'morality/lifestyle' of atheism is interesting, I believe it is the reflects a position of Anti-Atheism, of intolerance toward atheism.

Again, this is completely untrue, this is an incomplete quotation which twists it's meaning towards supporting your own misinterpretation, which would appear to be a result of your own prejudices.

The fact that atheism implies no moral/ethical/lifestyle guideline instructions within it's scope is not a criticism of atheism or atheists, merely a fact that is often misunderstood by the religious-minded.

I did not say, or imply, that atheists are lacking in morality or lifestyle choices.

Your confusion seems to stem from the misunderstanding that atheism is not religion.

Religion touches upon many subjects/areas of human thought. As related to this topic of conversation, it informs both a position on the supernatural (life's origins, a creator, etc.) and moral guidelines (the ten commandments, etc.).

Atheism only concerns itself with the question of the supernatural (or more specifically, deism). That is the entirety of it's scope, in other words, atheism has a much more limited scope in comparison to religion, whose scope is broad.

This means that atheists are only in general agreement with respect to their views on the supernatural, it implies nothing further.

Ethical/moral and lifestyle choices are a separate issue, any atheist is free to embrace an ethical or highly ritualistic lifestyle or a lifestyle of minimal concern for such concepts (or anything in between) and still be called an atheist.

Ex: All atheists are free to be pacifists, militant, vegetarian, omnivorous, humble, brash, respectful, contemptuous of authority, law abiding, sadistic, altruistic, etc. because the concepts have no relation to atheism.

Just as they can be black, white, male, female, 6'1" or have blonde hair; things that have nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism only describes a person's outlook on the supernatural/deities, it is not a sufficient descriptor of person's entire worldview/life stance, unlike a religious affiliation which contains a far more broadly defined set of values within the various types of religions/religious associations, as compared to atheism.

Any reading of atheist thinking, or even Wikipedia's atheism page would show this statement to untrue I believe the edits to this page are the result of a predetermined POV and do not reflect an understanding of the 'religion' info in the bio box, or of the philosophy of religion.

I believe I have shown above your own misinterpretation of the issue as well as your completely off-topic misinterpretation/wilful twisting of my viewpoint (which is a distraction from the core issue of debate).

Thank you 216.58.3.169 for editing in the category of atheist on this page.

This further exemplifies your misunderstanding of the issue. I did not edit in the category of "atheist", I edited in the category of "Religion", which incorrectly listed "atheist" as a valid attribute in this category.


I have explained this distinction between religion and atheism to you as best as I am able, if still unwilling or unable to accept my position or that of the Wikipedia Atheism portal on this matter, I can only suggest to you that you attempt your reclassification of the terms "atheist"/"atheism" on the Atheist portal as a type of religion and see what sort of reaction your choice garners there instead of attempting to do so with the term in obscure corners of Wikipedia.

(For example: Have you noticed that there is no "Religion: Atheism" category in the bio-box for Richard Dawkins' Wikipedia page?)

To offer my own further solution to this issue, I propose that both the category of "Religion" and the attributes of "Atheist/None" simply be deleted from the page.

I believe Brunswicknic's issue stems from the fact that he wishes to incorporate Pol Pot's purported atheism into the article, as he believes it to be relevant, which may well be, but I take issue with the crude and inaccurate way in which it was done.

I suggest that Brunswicknic or others feeling this information to be relevant find some way to incorporate it within the body of the article itself if they can find some way in which to do so that displays relevance.

If this cannot be agreed upon then I would request moderator intervention for this issue.

I should also note here, that this may be unnecessary and already covered by the editor "136.145.209.2" adding this page/Pol Pot under the category of "Atheists" at the bottom of the article.

Also, in response to "136.145.209.2"'s commentary towards me on the History page.

He was a marxist atheist. His ideology included atheism. Sorry, facts.

I never denied that he was an atheist, only that atheism was a religion, I don't think I could have been clearer. Though I would also add that while that may be true, that of course would mean his atheism was only an aspect of his Marxist-Leninist ideology, as atheism itself does not contain sufficient enough scope to be considered an ideology (likewise similar to disbelief in unicorns and the Tooth Fairy).

In any case, I am content for the moment not to contest that change (though I'm not sure that it's relevant frankly), as I am no expert on Pol Pot himself, though in the little reading I have done on him I have found quite a bit of debate on the strength of his atheism, just to make my position clear, but as I say, I don't have enough knowledge in this area to offer an informed opinion so I will leave that issue to others.

--216.58.3.169 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained really well above- "Atheism" is not in any way a religion and should not be listed as Pol Pot's "religion." I changed it back to "None." Honestly getting rid of the whole line about Religion would be even better as it's not relevant unless you can build it into the context of the article somewhere. Otherwise it's only included here to give theists an opportunity to hold Pol Pot up as an example of how evil atheists are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trcrev (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

QUOTE: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." SOURCE: Closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What Does "Pol Pot" mean?

...and how did Pol Pot come to use it? (If this is here and I missed it, a thousand apologies. This topic deserves better coverage.

Basesurge (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Pol Pot was just his chosen nom de guerre. It has no meaning in Khmer. The first paragraph in the "Leader of Kampuchea" subsection of the article gives two possible "meanings", but the first is just unsourced supposition and the second is one author's poor attempt (in that it demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding written Khmer) to find meaning. "Pol" sounds like an old word for the Pear people that was applied to captives similar to "slave" (see pg 2 here) but that word is derived from Sanskrit bala, "army, guard" and is spelled in Khmer very differently from Pol Pot's name. This NY Times article about his death confirms that the name is just a name chosen for anonymity and has no particular meaning.
As for how he came to use it, he adopted it sometime before 1970 when the Khmer Rouge movement gained serious momentum after the Lon Nol coup. Noms de gurre are usually adopted to signify a new beginning, maintain anonymity, obscure past connections (in this case to his wealthy higher-class background), and/or to protect family members from retribution. All of these reasons probably applied to Pol Pot.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pol Pot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Pol Pot Was Not Communist and More Fits Anti-Communist

Pol Pot was not Marxist, he couldn't read Marx, he was supported by the CIA, hated many other communists, in short, was not communist. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the examples of WP:Reliable Sources. If they say Pol Pot was a Marxist who promoted a political ideology that owed much to Marxism-Leninism, then that is what this article will say. The encyclopaedia does not exist to promote the idiosyncratic theories of any one editor. Besides, I think that your argument relies on a lot of dubious claims. Plenty of Marxists haven't actually read or studied Marx, they just rely on how his ideas have been promoted (and adapted) by others. The CIA were willing to promote all manner of groups to advance U.S. geopolitical interests; if by promoting Pol Pot or other communists they could weaken the influence of the Soviet Union, then they would do so (just look at Nixon's push to boost relations with Mao's China). Moreover, Marxists often tend to hate other Marxists: just look at the bitterness between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, then the Stalinists and the Trotskyists, then the Soviet-aligned Marxist-Leninists and the Maoists, then the orthodox Marxist-Leninists and the Eurocommunists... I could go on (but I won't). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
How is it an idiosyncratic theory? He was supported by the CIA for a reason. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It is idiosyncratic because it is not widely held, as far as I can see. Most importantly, it does not seem to be an idea found in the Reliable Sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"He was supported by the CIA" is not evidence of anything. If you can find a crap load of sources re-evaulating Pol Pot's communist reputation than go for it. (I have a hard time believing you'll find any or enough of significance to warrant a change in this article.) Muttnickl (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/khmerrouge.html, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khmer-rouge-cambodian-genocide-united-states/, https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/pol/polpotmontclarion0498.html, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cambodia-rouge/khmer-rouge-jailer-says-u-s-contributed-to-pol-pot-rise-idUSTRE5351VF20090406 Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
To start, you definitely can't use Jacobin because it fails WP:NPOV. The Reuters article you have listed also refers to the Khmer Rouge as communist and the montclair link is a letter to an editor. None of these are peer reviewed sources in credible journals or books from a credible publisher. To make such a substantial change in Pol Pot's article, you need more than a biased article, an article that doesn't support your statement, and a letter to an editor. Muttnick (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't even care anymore, I just posted random links. I'll just say Pol Pot was revisionist, didn't believe in Marxism-Leninism, and was literally a CIA agent. You can be unconvinced all you want, but it's true. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Muttnick (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph doesn't provide the most notable context

Per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, the first paragraph should "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it".

More specifically for an article about a person, WP:CONTEXTLINK says: "The first sentence of an article about a person should link to the page or pages about the topic where the person achieved prominence."

Pol Pot is most well-known for his totalitarian dictatorship leading the Cambodian genocide, in which (as the second paragraph mentions) approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population was killed. On the other hand, the information in the first paragraph (General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea, etc.) are of secondary notability.

Thus, I would propose we reorganize the introduction to the article by re-ordering the information, moving some the things in the second paragraph to the first paragraph and moving the detailed political offices he held to the second paragraph. I would also include the word "genocide" (which currently does not appear in the article) in the first paragraph.

Do others agree with this idea? (If so, I can make an edit) Cstanford.math (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely. Feels careless to have information about his ideologies before any information about his role in the Genocide. Jeroshark (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Also agreed. That was my first thought on reading this article. Neopeius (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
He had to be born, grow up and enter politics. What is this obsession with the idea that the most notable thing in their life has to come first? Can't people read a paragraph any more? Britmax (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I suspect one, or both, of these are a sock- or meatpuppet of Prose Corrector Professor Plifred (talk · contribs), who is obsessed with this sort of thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't this get changed? It's rage-inducing to read about one of history's great mass murderers that he was a "revolutionary and politician" in "Democratic Kampuchea" (which most people will have no idea wasn't "Democratic"). As to the complaint about reading past the first paragraph--as long as there is an introductory paragraph it needs to be the most accurate, which again would be what the person is most known for. Hi Early Life bio below goes into being born and growing up etc. That's its purpose. A different purpose than the introductory paragraph for a mass murderer. The introduction here is misleading at best and more likely just plain propaganda, I didn't know a Pol Pot fan club existed, but apparently it has influence in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.140.166.20 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely. See the opening paragraph of the Hitler article for comparison. I added a sentence to the end of the first paragraph summarizing the genocide from other sourced text in the article. Let's see if someone takes it out. Barpoint (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist

The term Marxist-Leninist is used throughout this article. Is anyone really attached to this particular designation? I don't think Pol Pot referred to himself as a Marxist-Leninist. Communist would probably suffice. The article also refers to Ceausescu as Marxist-Leninist, but if you look at his page that term is not used at all, just communist. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, even calling Pol Pot a Communist is about as accurate as calling Hitler a socialist. He may have claimed to be one, but the ideology he ruled according to has nothing to do with Marxist or Communist ideological principles. He was supported by the CIA for a reason. 2602:306:3818:4130:A44F:8B8E:D398:9B46 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
^This Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
seems like nonsensical whitewashing. He wasn't fundamentally different from Stalin. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

He never explained why he chose the pseudonym "Pol Pot".

cf "He never explained why he chose the pseudonym "Pol Pot"." I found: Pol Pot changed his name several times to protect his family and confuse his enemies. Some people think "Pol Pot" would be short for "Politique Potentielle", French for "potential politic", but that would be wrong as his movement spoke and wrote only in Khmer and rejected all foreign influence including foreign languages. According to Philip Short, author of Pol Pot, the name was taken from a group of aborigine type people captured and enslaved by the Ancient Khmer Kings. Pol hated kings, so naming himself after the kings slaves made a lot of sense. His main enemy in life had always been the monarchy in Phnom Penh, which was dominated by Norodom Sihanouk. The name Pot came from an old Khmer tradition of people without a second name simply taking a one syllable name that sounded similar to the first name, for example, someone named Yen might add Yat and be known as Yen Yat. 

[1]

If you see 6 months from now, nobody objects, you can copy paste this paragraph in the original text. Sincerely, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://polpot8.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-pol-pot-got-his-name.html

Premature GA Nomination

Hi ZKang123; I see that you have just nominated the Pol Pot article at GAN. Of course you are perfectly entitled to do so but as someone who has only one edit on the article itself, I would request that you consider the views of those of us who have been working on this article over a longer period. As the primary contributor to this article, who has worked on expanding and fully referencing the article over the past few years, I would raise some concerns about this and would suggest that this nomination be withdrawn, at least for the time being. The article simply is not GA quality yet. It needs more work. Having the article go through that process now will simply waste the reviewer's time. Hopefully over the next six months or so the quality of the article can be improved and at that juncture it could be nominated at GAN. But for now, I would recommend it be withdrawn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for saying that. What do you think can be improved for this article such that it may be of GA quality?--ZKang123 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently requires a fuller use of high-quality reliable sources. There are many sections of the article that rely either exclusively or almost entirely on Short's biography. There needs to be far greater use of other published biographies of Pol Pot (namely that of Chandler) as well as the use of other academic articles and books that explore the Khmer Rouge and its history. Once that has been achieved, and the article has been more fully scrutinised to ensure it reads well, then it will be ready for GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on very few people?

I noticed this article references one historian, David Chandler, one hundred and fifty-two times. Another, Philip Short, is referenced an astonishing three hundred and seventy-six times. These two men make up almost the entirety of this article's citations. Surely so heavily relying on the historical account and interpretations of just two men must be a problem? I understand Chandler is considered to be the foremost western expert of the topic and Short wrote a good biography, but wouldn't also citing Cambodian/SEA scholars be appropriate instead of almost solely relying on two English-language sources? 64.43.140.139 (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

May 2021

This should not have to be said, but if you dispute what is written in the article, carefully read the sources given and cite your own. In my opinion this article does rely too heavily on only a few sources. However, it seems to me that most of the contention arises from semantics rather than content. In this respect, I do not understand the contention surrounding the fact that Pol Pot died of heart failure. If Nate Thayer's unconfirmed claim is true that Pol Pot killed himself by overdosing on his medication, he still died from heart failure. Overdoses kill you by stopping your heart. What's disputed is if it was a natural or forced heart failure, which I think the paragraph clearly explains. The only issue I see is that both claims (natural vs. suicide) only have one source to back them up. All the news article citations for the sentence on suicide cite the same claim by the same person, Nate Thayer. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, two changes were made:
  • A revert: "On 15 April 1998, Pol Pot died in his sleep." → "On 15 April 1998, Pol Pot died in his sleep of heart failure."
  • And the removal of the sentence, "There are indications that he had committed suicide by taking an overdose of the medication which he had been prescribed."
The first change was made because 1. That's what the source given says and no new sources were provided, and 2. Regardless of if Pol Pot died naturally from a heart attack or if he killed himself by overdosing on his medication, he still died from heart failure because that's how you die from an overdose.
The second change was made because I read the source given and it did not talk about "indications" that Pol Pot committed suicide. It did not talk about "suspicions" (plural) either, and only discussed the (at the time recent) claim by Nate Thayer that Pol Pot killed himself. This is immediately discussed in the next sentence, so why is a source discussing one claim being used to imply multiple? The original edit (not recently made) was an overgeneralisation at best and a bad faith misuse of a source at worst.
If you have any disagreements with the content of this article, be prepared to provide sources of your own if the ones already cited contradict your proposals. If someone asks for sources and your answer is, "Well this whole article is poorly sourced", my reply to that is, "I agree, so please provide sources to make it better." It's not an excuse. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:09, 16 May 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm INCENSED!

"Pol Pot[a] (born Saloth Sâr;[b] 19 May 1925 – 15 April 1998) was a Cambodian revolutionary and politician who governed Cambodia as the Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea between 1975 and 1979."

This and everything else in this article is such a WHITEWASHED and CLEANSED view of a MURDEROUS DICTATOR that I am beside myself!!!

HOW are a newer generation supposed to avoid the atrocities of the past if we don't use TRUTHFUL, DESCRIPTIVE terms!!!??? Pol Pot was not simply "General Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea"! He was the "MURDEROUS LEADER OF THE HORRIFIC KHMER ROUGE THAT SPREAD A BLOODY GENOCIDE ACROSS CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM FOR FOUR, HORRIFIC YEARS!!!"

SHAME ON THE WRITERS OF THIS WIKI!!!! Crgrove (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedias aren't written in ALL CAPS commentary. I believe the article covers Pol Pot's atrocities in extensive detail, but not in the shrill terms you want it to have. Acroterion (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Crgrove and I strongly suspect most readers get the same impression. In the intro to the article, "whitewashed" and "cleansed" are an understatement. I added the page to my watchlist years ago and no improvement to the article since... being a good Encyclopedia article is more than just delivering the facts, it should deliver the most important facts clearly and up front. Cstanford.math (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to propose constructive changes that don't involve ALL-CAPS !!!!, that emphasize Pol Pot's crimes more directly. Acroterion (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you User:Acroterion. I took a stab at edits to the first paragraph using references from the Cambodian genocide page. What do you think? Also, if I should post the edits here first in the future before directly editing, please let me know, I'm not always familiar with the proper etiquette. Thanks, Cstanford.math (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging User:Ecpiandy Ecpiandy, I agree with TheTimes that the edits you made were unsourced as written, but I agreed with the spirit of your proposal. Wanted to post on the talk page in case you wanted to take another stab or discuss. Instead of "regarded as one of the most evil political leaders in history" one would need to dig up some sources of historians & experts who have declared him as such, and cite those. May also need to edit the body of the article to mention some more things, perhaps in Reception and Legacy. Cstanford.math (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Rather than having a beauty contest for the "most evil" why not just let the facts speak for themselves? Britmax (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Britmax Exactly... and the article does not mention such facts. Completely whitewashed. Truly. Rather, it mentions some but buried pretty deep and mostly reads like an article about some benevolent leader who was pursuing his ideal of communism. Cstanford.math (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, are you reading the right article? Of course it mentions these things, what exactly do you want? This is not a tabloid newspaper, maybe that's what you're used to? Twice in the lead alone is your idea of "buried deep"? Britmax (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Britmax I added at least one of those mentions in a recent addition. If you have read the current article and think it is a good introduction to Pol Pot, then I think we have nothing else to discuss. I will only say that if internet users today come to this article to read it, they will find a whole lot of fluff that says very little about the atrocities committed by this man. As I have said, a good article should teach the reader the most relevant facts early & up front. The whole article is guilty instead of the opposite. Cstanford.math (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I think I see what the problem might be. This is the biographical article on Pol Pot. You are looking for the article titled Cambodian genocide, which covers the events in more depth. This is only a relatively small part of this article, as it was only a relatively small part of Pol Pot's life. Incidentally, if you want to draw more attention to your point, you might edit the section title to be more attuned to the subject than "I'm incensed". Britmax (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Britmax I didn't write the section title. Cstanford.math (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
So you didn't. Sorry about that. Britmax (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Word choice stats in this article

I gathered some quick stats about the word choice in the current draft of this article. I hope these will explain to some naysayers what others are upset about:

  • The phrases "forced labor", "malnutrition", and "disease" are mentioned once in the entire article, all in the one sentence I added to the lead. Apparently, according to the writers, these are not relevant to the topic of Pol Pot. (The word "abuse" appears twice in the article, once that I added. "Starv-" variants appear only 3 times.)
  • The word "genocide" is mentioned twice in the lead now, but the body of the article only mentions it in two places: One of them is in the name of "Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum". The other is to discuss "The idea that the deaths which occurred under Pol Pot's government should be considered genocide", as if this were something historians are still debating.
  • Discussion of deaths due to Pol Pot's regime are restricted to one sub-subsection, entitled "number of deaths". Outside of this section, the article only uses the word "death" in the section describing Pol Pot's own death.

I wouldn't say the information in the article is useless, it would in fact be very useful if stated in the proper context. But it's absolutely "whitewashed" and "cleansed", whether you put the words in all-caps or not. It goes to great lengths to avoid referring to Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge as responsible for any negative effects of their regime, instead speaking in great length in political and philosophical terms about government and ideology. It speaks of Cambodian society as if written solely from the point of view of an administration. Cstanford.math (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't really agree with a lot of the things that you say here. At the end of the day, this is a biographical article about Pol Pot, not an article devoted to the events commonly known as the Cambodian Genocide. Moreover, it is not as if this article is neglecting to mention the starvation, the killings etc that took place in Cambodia under his governance; all of that information is in the article, mentioned at the chronologically appropriate junctures. What sort of specific changes would you propose be made to the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl Thanks for joining the discussion. Before reverting constructive edits, please, let's follow WP:WAR and WP:Revert and discuss on the talk page and come to a consensus. I don't think it is controversial that the cambodian genocide is highly relevant to the topic of Pol Pot. Also I am far from the only one to notice that the article does a bad job of introducing the reader to Pol Pot. An article that fails to mention the number of lives and impact of Pol Pot's regime is just a bad introduction to the topic. Can you clarify how you think this should not be mentioned early and up front? Do you think the genocide is of secondary importance to Pol Pot as a person, or do you have some other concern?
I agree much of the relevant information is mentioned, but a good article must also mention the most important information early & up front. With regard to "what sort of specific changes", I already proposed them -- mention important info up-front -- and made them, but you reverted those changes. Cstanford.math (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Let me add a summary of my main two issues with the article. (1) A good article should mention the most relevant information up front. (2) A good article should use a neutral tone of voice and accurate language, whereas the current language is vague, nondescriptive, and euphemistic. See word choice above. I fully agree with your statement that this article should maintain a neutral tone and point out that the current article's tone is blatantly not neutral. Cstanford.math (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Cstanford.math, please don't try to restore the recent changes to the lead. In terms of its structuring, the lead of this article has been in a roughly steady state for quite a few years now (from March 2018, at least). You want to make changes to the structure, and you are more than welcome to argue your case, but as per WP:BRD you should not edit war to reinstate the recent changes. The changes were BOLD, but they were controversial, so they were REVERTED. Now they can be DISCUSSED, but they should not be restored until there is some consensus. I'm very happy to discuss with you, and maybe find areas we can all agree on, but the changes cannot be implemented until that point, as per Wikipedia policy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
When you say "I don't think it is controversial that the cambodian genocide is highly relevant to the topic of Pol Pot", I think that we can all agree. And yes, it is fair to say that I think, for the purposes of this article, that "the genocide is of secondary importance to Pol Pot as a person." (After all, we already have articles on the Cambodian Genocide and Democratic Kampuchea where we can reasonably devote our focus far more on the atrocities and suffering). I do not believe that giving estimates regarding how many people died under Pol Pot's administration is appropriate for the opening paragraph. It's lead-worthy, I'll definitely say that, but not appropriate for the opening sentences; the third paragraph is a far more appropriate place. If I understand correctly, you (and Crgrove) feel that we fail to put enough emphasis on the genocide, and the details of the genocide, into this article. As evidence, you probably could point to the fact that for several years the article has first mentioned the term "Cambodian genocide" in the third paragraph, and not the first. On this, I am certainly willing to compromise. I can see a valid argument for mentioning the "Cambodian genocide" in that first paragraph - I just don't think that's the place for then going into details about it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
When you say that "the current language is vague, nondescriptive, and euphemistic", could you provide specific examples? It's important that the language is precise, but I'd be concerned that making much heavier use of terms like "abuse" and "genocide" would actually be doing the opposite. For instance, whether the mass deaths that we commonly call the "Cambodian genocide" was actually a genocide in the technical sense is still, I believe, debated, as the intention of its perpetrators was never to exterminate an entire ethnic group. I think we need to be very cautious about using language that is emotive, loaded, and potentially hyperbolic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, let's discuss here. A third opinion on our disagreement would be very welcome. If you know of any Wikipedia processes we could use to come to a consensus, like a voting process, that would be welcome. It is not just me and Crgrove, but also User:Ecpiandy, and repeated complaints and edits that can be seen in the page history and talk page history. The common theme of those complaints is that the article gives a rather apologist/whitewashed impression. This page comes up first in a google search on the topic, and I believe that it is very bad PR for Wikipedia in general, which is why I am trying to devote some time to make some improvements, however small. I just want people who have never heard of Pol Pot to get an accurate, neutral POV picture and to learn something. I don't know all the ways to improve the article -- mentioning the genocide at least in the first paragraph is certainly an improvement -- but I am very confident that, from the perspective a non-expert, say, someone who has never heard about Pol Pot, the long-standing draft of the article is very bad.
So imagine you have never heard of Pol Pot, his name comes up, so you google him and click on the page. You then learn the following facts in order: (1) he was a "revolutionary and politician" in Cambodia, (2) he led the communist movement, (3) he was the president of communist control of the country (4) (now that it is added) genocide occurred during his presidency. If you choose to read on, you next learn: (5) he had an elite background and education, (6) he was connected to the French communist party and various other organizations, (7) he worked as a teacher, (8) he helped to rename his party, (9) ....
Does this sound like you are reading the article of a man who is regularly listed, by historians and experts, as one of the worst humans in history? A leader of of a brutal, totalitarian, bloody regime? It honestly sounds like I'm reading about the equivalent of Barack Obama or some other influential politician in Cambodia, someone guilty of no immediately salient wrongdoing.
To reduce my thoughts to just one specific complaint, for starters, I would point to the lack of any mention of Pol Pot's almost-universally-condemned reputation. Would you be in favor of adding some mentions of things historians have said about him, citing people who have listed him as one of the worst dictators in history, etc.? There are already several excerpts in "reception and legacy" from various newspapers (New York Times, BBC News, Time) that could be summarized.
In terms of euphemistic language, just focusing on the lead, I think the following are the worst offenders: "Mass killings of perceived government opponents"; "malnutrition and poor medical care"; "Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge forces advanced and controlled all of Cambodia by 1975."; "Pol Pot proved divisive among the international communist movement."; "Many claimed he deviated from orthodox Marxism–Leninism"; "To his supporters, he was a champion of Cambodian sovereignty in the face of Vietnamese imperialism and stood against the Marxist revisionism of the Soviet Union"; "is regarded as a totalitarian dictator guilty of crimes against humanity."
Sorry for the essay, continued discussion towards a consensus would be extremely appreciated, thank you for your time. Cstanford.math (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
P. S. I disagree with this statement: that for the purposes of this article, "the genocide is of secondary importance to Pol Pot as a person." Surely the genocide is fundamental to him as a person, and fundamentally at odds with the portrayal of him here. A human-caused loss of 1.5-2 million lives does not happen by accident; whether Pol Pot's admirers believed he was responsible for the killings or not, his role in this mass destruction is surely the most important -- and as of now unexplained -- facet of his character. Cstanford.math (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that WP:Third Opinion would be the best option here, as the likes of User:Britmax and User:Acroterion have already weighed in to this debate in the above section, so we have already had some additional opinions. WP:Request for Comment would be a better option but I don't think that we've reached an impasse yet. If we were to expand the mention of the Genocide in the opening paragraph, how would you suggest it be phrased? Something like "During his administration, Cambodia became a one-party communist state, while around 1 to 2 million citizens died in events later called the Cambodian Genocide"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl I suggest the following (similar to the text you reverted, I assume given your question you are not happy with this text?)

"During his administration, Cambodia was converted into a one-party communist state, in which mass executions, forced labor, physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease culminated in the deaths of 1.5 to 2 million people, in events later called the Cambodian Genocide."

"1 to 2 million died" is extremely euphemistic and not neutral POV. It says nothing of how these people died. I postulate that that the fact this is euphemistic is not controversial.

Not only is this more specific and descriptive, it also explicitly clarifies what is entailed by the "genocide", which, as you point out, is a term which has been technically debated. Do you not think the mass executions, forced labor, physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease are first-order relevant to Pol Pot as a person? All of these are backed up by sources in the article itself. If you do not, can you enumerate which of these facts would you prefer is left out, and can you provide a reason *why* any each atrocity does not deserve mention from the very beginning?

Also, let me repeat my earlier question: would you be in favor of adding some mentions of things historians have said about him, citing people who have listed him as one of the worst dictators in history, etc.?

To pick your brain a bit on something specific: considering the excerpt from the lead, "To his supporters, he was a champion of Cambodian sovereignty in the face of Vietnamese imperialism and stood against the Marxist revisionism of the Soviet Union", do you think this is an acceptable inclusion in the lead for a wikipedia article on Pol Pot?

Sure, another weigh-in from Britmax and Acroterion would be helpful with feedback specific to the textual changes now being discussed. As I understand, in the current talk page we have somewhat of an equal split between people very to extremely unhappy with the article and people defending it. So I am asking if you know of a Wikipedia policy for that situation (say, 50-50 war in the talk page regarding the POV/neutrality of what is mentioned in a lead), not necessarily just a third opinion.

Thanks in advance for any further discussion you can provide! Cstanford.math (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of adding quotations from historians (or others) to the lead, I think that that's a bad idea. It would inevitably involve cherry picking certain opinions over others, which would be loading the article with a POV. It is also simply unnecessary. We have FA-rated political biographies of controversial characters like Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, and Vladimir Lenin, and at those we don't start throwing quotations into the lead. Quotations can certainly go in the "Reception and legacy" section of the article (and are there presently), but I do not see them as lead-worthy.
I would also strongly oppose removing the "To his supporters, he was a champion of Cambodian sovereignty[...]" sentence from the lead. Again referring back to the FA-rated articles I mentioned (and there are a host of GA articles of political figures that could also be mentioned), we state what aspects of their leadership are lauded by supporters, and what are condemned by opponents. Why should the Pol Pot article be any different? The only possible reason for that removal would be to push the article into a much more unambiguously anti-Pol Pot direction. Cstanford.math, I do appreciate that you have legitimately-held concerns about this article, and you are working constructively here at the Talk Page, but can you see how from my perspective a lot of these suggested edits look like POV-pushing? It's not our job to present Pol Pot as a monstrous embodiment of evil. We need to neutrally present the facts; that includes how many people died and suffered under his regime and how, but also what he was seeking to achieve as leader, and why some people (both in Cambodia and abroad) supported him. At present, the article does that.
I think the sentence that you propose be added to the opening paragraph fixes too much attention on one aspect of his administration (a big one, granted, but one facet nonetheless) at too early a juncture. As I said before, I have conceded that there is value in mentioning the 'Cambodian genocide' in that first paragraph, and I'm also happy outlining what that actually entailed in the lead; the third paragraph just seems a far more appropriate location, chronologically speaking. On this particular point, I'd also like to hear more from interested editors at this Talk Page. If they are not forthcoming then I think a WP:Request for Comment would be the way to go; although I do suspect this is one of those issues where editors are going to be divided roughly down the middle. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, no, I don't see how what I am proposing can be considered as POV-pushing. It is possible you may misunderstand what I'm proposing, which is just to add relevant facts to the lead, stated neutrally, which are currently completely, obviously, and intentionally omitted. I agree about not adding direct quotes in the lead, but rather summarizing Pol Pot's popular reputation as one of the worst people in history -- not stating that he is, but stating that he is often considered so. That is very relevant to him no matter your perspective, so I don't see how that has anything to do with POV. And currently is completely absent from the article for a reader who does not know who Pol Pot is.
I think we're at an impasse, so let's agree to disagree. I think the next step would be for me to draft a change to the entire lead (if I have the time sometime), from a neutral POV to mention what it is intentionally and obviously leaving out. I would then post that more broadly in a request for comment, using either WP:RFC or WP:DRN. Thanks for your time in this discussion. Cstanford.math (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

May i Edit pol pot's picture info down below please? Ralfh Mahinay (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.   melecie   t 02:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

Requesting a restoration of the one source template as it was removed without adequate explanation. Roughly 80% of citations rely on Philip Short's Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare. 109.77.245.10 (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ivar the Boneful, you removed this, do you believe it should remain off the article? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there appears to be a moderate consensus for this change. Let us consider the following:

  • The heavy reliance on Short's biography has been pointed out many times now by at least three different users, without contention on any of these posts. See Talk:Pol Pot/Archive 2:
    • "The article currently requires a fuller use of high-quality reliable sources. There are many sections of the article that rely either exclusively or almost entirely on Short's biography." -- User:Midnightblueowl
    • "Heavy reliance on very few people? I noticed this article references one historian, David Chandler, one hundred and fifty-two times. Another, Philip Short, is referenced an astonishing three hundred and seventy-six times. These two men make up almost the entirety of this article's citations. Surely so heavily relying on the historical account and interpretations of just two men must be a problem? I understand Chandler is considered to be the foremost western expert of the topic and Short wrote a good biography, but wouldn't also citing Cambodian/SEA scholars be appropriate instead of almost solely relying on two English-language sources?" User Talk:64.43.140.139
  • The template was previously present and removed without adequate reason -- this is true.
  • 80% of citations rely on the one source: also true.

Adding myself and whoever originally added the original template to the article, that makes five (5) users who allege that the article is biased to one source. As WP:Consensus is usually reached informally rather than formally, it is hard to know if this represents a true agreement, but I will boldly make the edit for now. Anyone want to chime in against, or any of the above users I counted as "for" want to change or clarify their stance? User:ScottishFinnishRadish as I understood your response, you don't oppose the change, but wanted to hear more opinions in particular from the person who removed the template. Thanks in advance for further discussion. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Caleb Stanford just ran into an edit conflict with you funnily enough. In my opinion the template isn't really intended for articles like this - see also Template:One source#Editorial usage. It's not unusual or inappropriate for an article to rely on a single authoritative biography for basic facts, there's no requirement to jump between multiple sources for the sake of it. Counting citations is not a good measure, it places equal weight on mundane and non-mundane statements. However it is a problem if there are multiple biographies making different interpretations of the subject or disagreeing on basic facts. I don't know enough about Pol Pot historiography to know how well the Short and Chandler sources are regarded, I do agree with your point about adding non-Western sources. The article is not totally devoid of other sources so I don't feel adding a tag of shame really adds or helps anything, on the whole it's a pretty good article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense in general, but I think for a topic as controversial as this (with frequent disagreements with respect to content inclusion), a better diversity of opinions is critical. A single source would make sense if that source is undisputed to have been an authoritative take on the matter. If it matters, IMO the article is quite low-quality, and written from a very biased point of view with respect to which facts are and aren't included; I don't know if that's due to the sparsity of sources or just personal preference of the main writer(s). Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
What would you say is missing? Or what would you say the bias is? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021

In the section on his early life it says the Japanese ousted the french from Cambodia in 1945, this is incorrect as Japan surrendered in 45, it should say 1941 when Japan occupied french Indochina. 172.56.26.20 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Excommunicato (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

further information about family. Morth25 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to tell us what further information about his family you think should be aided. JBW (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Overuse of the term "Marxist-Leninist"

The article uses the term "Marxist-Leninist" 39 times and particularly emphasizes "Marxism-Leninism" as the subject's ideology. However, the article later elaborates that the subject's ideological leanings were in many ways distinct from "Marxism-Leninism" and details the subject's abandonment of the ideology in the 1980s. This makes the article less clear, as it contradicts itself in this respect. Should this be changed? Or are the references to "Marxism-Leninism" properly placed within the article? Wackword (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Wackword

The former, indeed. This makes the article less clear, as it contradicts itself in this respect, therefore it should be changed in this respect. 16:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)peyerk (talk)
I think the change should be to the organisation's specific names. Seems to me that the original author of the section(s) substituted, for example, Viet Minh with "Vietnamese Marxist-Leninists", even though the Viet Minh was a broad coalition of anti-colonial groups which included communists and non-communists. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

In the "Cult activities around Pol Pot's tomb" subsection of the "Reception and legacy" section, change "Amanda Pike, an investigative journalist who has visited Cambodia, states that some of Pol Pot's supporters, still cling to his memory and ideology and that some fervent believers, still worship him." to "Amanda Pike, an investigative journalist who has visited Cambodia, states that some of Pol Pot's supporters still cling to his memory and ideology and that some fervent believers still worship him." Kirby Macintosh (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Pol Pot being in Category:Anti-imperialism is questionable

While he did support Cambodia's independence from France, he was also pro-imperialist in that he advocated spreading his particular flavor of Marxism-Leninism to other countries (most notably Vietnam) by force. Partofthemachine (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

References

This article relies to a ridiculous extent on Philip Short’s 2004 book. The article is in desperate need of additional, diverse references. 2601:41:200:5260:8CCA:D02B:5A7D:DE6F (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist" is Original Research not in the source text

As a previous editor has noted, the phrase Marxist-Leninst has been littered throughout this article. I read through the sources, and the sources don't state what the editor is stating.

Point 1: In Paris, Ieng Sary and two others established the Cercle Marxiste ("Marxist Circle"), a Marxist–Leninist organisation arranged in a clandestine cell system. The cells met to read Marxist texts and hold self-criticism sessions. Sâr joined a cell that met on the rue Lacepède; his cell comrades included Hou Yuon, Sien Ary, and Sok Knaol. (Short 2004, p. 63.)

From the source on page 63:

No one used the word 'communism'...'The main question was always to get the communists to help us free ourselves from the colonialists'... "quite when Saloth Sar joined is unclear. He may have been at the meeting at Sceaux but, if so, took little part in the discussion, for no one remembers his presence there. Indeed, Thiounn Munnn had no recollection of meeting him at any time in Paris..... That did not mean they were all Marxists"

-Marxist-Leninist was never used, and the communism of the group is in question, as is Pol Pot ever joining the group.

Point 2: Sâr also read Mao's work, especially On New Democracy, a text outlining a Marxist–Leninist framework for carrying out a revolution in colonial and semi-colonial, semi-feudal societies. (Short 2004, p. 70.)

-This page does not call the speech "Marxist-Leninist"

Point 3: Sâr regarded the Khmer Việt Minh, a mixed Vietnamese and Cambodian guerrilla subgroup of the North Vietnam-based Việt Minh, as the most promising resistance group. He believed the Khmer Việt Minh's relationship to the Việt Minh and thus the international Marxist–Leninist movement made it the best group for the Cercle Marxiste to support. (Short 2004, p. 89-90.)

-Again, Marxist-Leninist is not mentioned

Point 4: He and other Cambodian Marxist–Leninists decided to pursue their aims through electoral means. (Short 2004, p. 105.)

-This text does not say Marxist-Leninist.

Point 5: Cambodia's Marxist–Leninists wanted to operate clandestinely but also established a socialist party, Pracheachon, to serve as a front organization through which they could compete in the 1955 election. (Chandler 1992, p. 48.)

-The text doesn't say Marxist-Leninist or Socialist.

These are all the edits of @Midnightblueowl:. Can you please comment on these edits. Frankly, I'm not going to read anymore.Stix1776 (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What terms would you suggest in place of "Marxist-Leninist" here? I suppose either "Marxist" or "communist" are possible options. Bear in mind, however, that (as we cite in the article), Pol Pot described himself as adhering to a "Marxist–Leninist viewpoint" so it is not as if the term is inappropriate. He saw himself as operating within the Leninist tradition, rather than in a rival, non-Leninist approach to Marxism, let alone a non-Marxist approach to communism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest using the terms in the source material per WP:NOR. Does the term "Marxist-Leninist" exist in the sources that I specified above, or maybe I remove them?Stix1776 (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Edit: It looks like there's more editors unhappy with the addition here. If you add the discussion here, I now count 6 editors that are questioning the use of "Marxist-Leninist".Stix1776 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
User Midnightblueowl isn't providing a source. I'm going to check each incidence of "Marxist-Leninist" in the text for the source. It's a very time consuming process. If anyone wants to revert my change, can they please provide a quote from a source. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to add a tag, but there's still 31 more instances of "Marxist-Leninist" to verify. Please help verify if you can. Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI, I'm using the books from archive.org to verify the links. Other editors can double check from [1] here and [2] here.Stix1776 (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm removing the text "Pol Pot described his CPK as adhering to a "Marxist–Leninist viewpoint", albeit one that had been adapted to Cambodian conditions" because the quote from the source literally contradicts this statement:

That raised the question of whether Cambodian 'communism', in the fully developed form it assumed after mid-1976, could be considered Marxist-Leninist at all. 'Certain [foreign] comrades,' Pol acknowledged, 'take the view that our Party . . . cannot operate well because it does not understand Marxism-Leninism and the comrades of our Central Committee have never learnt Marxist principles.' His answer was that the CPK did 'nurture a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint', but in its own fashion. To some extent this was true. Party members studied texts on dialectical materialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat and other Marxist concepts. But the Cambodian Party had never been an integral part of the world communist movement — until 1975, its only foreign contacts were with China, Vietnam and Laos — and it took from Marxism only those things which were consonant with its own world-view. Socialism, to Pol, was a means to an end, a way of making Cambodia strong, 'of defending the country and preserving the Kampuchean race forever'. His ideological soul mates were not Stalin or Mao, but the sixteenth-century Englishman Thomas More, the Hebertistes of the French Revolution and the utopian socialists of nineteenth-century Russia, whom Lenin had castigated as 'the carriers of a reactionary petty bourgeois ideology [promoting] stagnation and Asiatic backwardness'. The difference was that Pol had power and could put his ideas into effect.

Stix1776 (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Marxist-Leninist"

Pol Pot was a radical anti-revisionist Maoist (cf. the different photos showing use of Stalin portraits in DK) - he was supported by the PRC and opposed by the actually Marxist-Leninist Vietnam. How could one get this so wrong lol Statskvinde (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I'm actively fixing this (see talk above). Feel free to help.Stix1776 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Stix1776 Great! Thanks. It's a 1000% fact that he was an anti-revisionist and a radical Maoist. Maybe this should be of help: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/28556 "This thesis argues that Pol Pot was an unsophisticated political theorist and that he attempted to localize Maoism to serve his virulently ultra-nationalist agenda against Cambodia's ethnic Vietnamese. This is contrary to the existing assertions that Pol Pot was either a Maoist fundamentalist or adopted an ideology close to Maoism. The thesis postulates that Pol Pot used Maoism as a framework from which to launch his Khmer revivalist anti-Vietnamese program." Even if he wasn't an honest Maoist, he still undoubtfully presented himself as one. De Statskvinde (talk). 07:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There are similar problems with other KR-related articles:

  • Many editors and Western commentators try to exotify KR, framing it as an almost otherworldy phenomenon. There is plenty of no true Scotsmanesque arguments, that KR would have been ultranationalist, agrarian utopian, etc., seeking to select references and commentaries to avoid confronting the fact that a person that spent over 4 decades in the communist movement would ever have been a communist.
  • 'Maoism' isn't super well defined. Clearly CPK sided with CPC against CPSU in the great schism in the communist movement, although a pro-Soviet minority continued to function within the party. But moreover the faction that Pol Pot led was distinct from the overtly pro-Chinese faction in CPK (see Khmer–Chinese Friendship Association). So CPK never bought into Maoism wholesale.
  • Obviously Pol Pot was a Marxist-Leninist for most of his political career, and ML and Maoism are by no means mutually exclusive (on the contrary, they overlap). CPK officially abandonned ML when reforming into PDK, but remained connected with pro-CPC parties in the communist movement. Did Pol Pot cease to be a Marxist-Leninist, or was this more of a tactical move? I'd bet my money (or food ration) on the latter. --Soman (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pol_Pot/Archive_2&oldid=1222433446"