Talk:Cambodian genocide

Latest comment: 2 days ago by 83.89.30.26 in topic The title of the article is wrong

Quality of Citation 32 (Southerland)

edit

This source is a 2006 article in Radio Free Asia. While I don't have any reason doubt the existence of the atrocities it mentions, RFA is a known propaganda arm of the United States government known for spreading misinformation in and about the region under discussion in this article, and is therefore not to be trusted any farther than you can throw one of their broadcast towers. Perhaps we can find a primary source to replace it on the issues we're using it for here? Southerland himself cites a book, First They Killed My Father, by one Loung Ung (with whom I'm unfamiliar, but I did come to this article to learn in the first place), to substantiate some of the claims he makes that we repeat here. That might be a good starting point, if it's credible. A quick google search shows that some people have already picked at a few details, albeit unimportant ones. Cypionate (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may want to refer to this discussion about the reliability of RFA. I personally don't know much about this topic to give an informed opinion, but it's good to cross reference RFA with another source due to their bias in geopolitically-charged areas. PetraMagna (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Radio Free Asia is usually considered a reliable source, as can be seen at WP:RSP. As can be read on that page there is consensus that for the purposes of Wikipedia it is neither a peddler of misinformation nor a propaganda outlet. If you disagree with that assessment the proper place to voice complaints is WP:RSN. XeCyranium (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Peter Landsiedel Source

edit

This is an undetailed comment to be sure, but the Peter Landsiedel source that’s being used very early and prominently in the article to establish key facts about the genocide is painfully, abysmally weak and immediately throws the credibility of the entire article into question.

Surely there is a better, peer reviewed academic source that could be used to substantiate these important, basic-fact level claims. This source is essentially a Wordpress blog post. 2601:58D:200:DAF0:95B9:2484:A5CB:3105 (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned about the bit on women's advancements

edit

Okay, this is kind of outside the normal parameters of discussion on Wikipedia and I don't think there's a specific policy that covers this. But the section on androcide, as it currently sits, kinda makes it sound like the genocide was a good thing for women. And it probably was in some ways. But it seems, I dunno...like emphasizing this might have some regrettable consequences? When I read it a part of my brain thought sheepishly, "Wow, we really are holding women back."

Does anyone else see it this way? Should we maybe de-emphasize the benefits of killing all men?

I promise I'm not trolling. 2603:7081:1603:A300:9F79:EF07:34F3:5044 (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The title of the article is wrong

edit

the article is about all of the crimes in cambodia, crimes against humanity and the genocide against the vietnamese. Since the icc have only ruled the 20,000 vietnamesd murdered as genocide, the title of the article should not be cambodian genocide, but perhaps crimes against humanity and genocide in cambodia. 83.89.30.26 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply