Jump to content

Talk:Pol Pot

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Barpoint (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 5 September 2019 (→First paragraph doesn't provide the most notable context). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:0.7 set nominee

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Also agreed. That was my first thought on reading this article. Neopeius (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^This Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
How is it an idiosyncratic theory? He was supported by the CIA for a reason. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok. Muttnick (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pol_Pot&oldid=914158703"