This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cambodia Start‑class Top‑importance Democratic Kampuchea is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Cambodia To-do: Let us work in the best reference and presentation of archaeological sites of Cambodia beyond Angkor like Sambor Prei Kuk, Angkor Borei (Takeo), etc. Should disambiguate Republican Party for Democracy and Renewal and generally try to link up social conscience with right-wing values. I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts. But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972 at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine. http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG Thankfull for this info. [Unsigned] Military history: National / Asian / Southeast Asia C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force Asian military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force Former countries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The fact that Prince (former King) Norodom Sihanouk was Chairman of the State Presidium (de jure Head of State) of Democratic Kampuchea from 1975-1976 has absolutely no bearing on the name of the state, et cetera. Cambodia was styled 'Democratic Kampuchea' right from the outset, not the 'Kingdom of Cambodia' and the flag and emblem of Democratic Kampuchea that were used after 1976 by Democratic Kampuchea were used during the period 1975-1976 as well (please see the Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea from 1975.) Sihanouk was 'Chairman of the State Presidium' during this period, as opposed to King.

In essence, the Khmer Rouge enlisted the support of Sihanouk in an effort to bolster support for them amongst the mass of the peasantry, (which previously they majorly lacked) who viewed the King and Royal family, in whatever role they took, in almost god-like terms, and it worked. Cambodian peasants flocked to the Khmer Rouge in droves once they had Sihanouk's support.

All that aside however, it remains that the political entity which existed 1975-1976 was exactly the same as that which existed after 1976. Same name, same flag, same emblem, same constitution, same everything. The fact Sihanouk was it's (largely powerless) legal head of state during this period is irrelevant. Thus, the page you have created should be merged into the Democratic Kampuchea article.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the Democratic Kampuchea infobox states "1976-1979" as the period of its existence, which I took as confirmation for the KoC's existence before 1976. The "|event_start =" establishment parameter is Fall of Phnom Penh, but the time parameters are "|date_start = 5 January |year_start = 1976". Does January 5 1976 refer to anything, or is it just completely erroneous? ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion on its talk page. There's nothing to merge from there, it should just be redirected (or perhaps even deleted). Instead, there should be a description on how the Khmer Rouges ruled in coalition with the GRUNK at the beginning and Sihanouk was head of state. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached on Talk:Kingdom_of_Cambodia_(1975–76)#growing stub to merge Kingdom_of_Cambodia_(1975–76) into this article, which I did. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: and 124.148.222.41 : I see you reverting each other from now more than one week in order to state if Democratic Kampuchea religion was atheism, state atheism, none or nothing to fill. Would it be possible to express here your arguments for and against any options and wait for the feedbacks of other contributors before continuing to modify the article? Thank you for your cooperation. --Sundgauvien38 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "none", with "state atheism" in parentheses afterwards as an explanation (provided this is supported by sources), seems a good solution to me. (And bad form to castigate others for edit warring without mentioning that you were part of it yourself...) W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion (search for the phrase "Advice sought regarding" implementation" -- its in arbitrary section break 007)

More importantly, look at how much support "None (atheism)" got in the survey, and note that almost none of the comments said it should be avoided for BLP reasons, instead arguing that it should be avoided in all articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was specifically only about BLPs. What are your arguments for omitting it in this article? (And for continuing to edit-war when this discussion clearly shows you don't yet have a majority for your position?) W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding it to include political parties was discussed in the RfC section I referenced above. State atheism is not a religion, and the overwhelming consensus at that RfC was against using "Religion: None (atheism)" in any infobox, not just BLPs. I wrote the RfC, but as often happens the consensus was clearly in favor of a something that I failed to include in my RfC, so of course I am now following the clear consensus whether I agree with it it not. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that there was any consensus that would apply to this article. There seems to have been a good suggestion that with country infoboxes the "religion" parameter should be made more specific (does it mean the predominant religion, the state religion, or what), but I don't see any gain to readers in omitting this nugget of information entirely. Does anyone have any actual arguments in favor of doing so (and no need to repeat that "state atheism is not a religion"; everybody realizes that)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you realize that, why don't you realize that non-religions don't belong in the religion section of infoboxes?

Consider the following comments from the "Support [Omit parameter]" section of the RFC:

• "Atheism and similar are not religions, so why are we trying to reflect them in the religion parameter? We don't use "= none" for all parameters that are not applicable to a particular person (monuments = none?); we omit those parameters."
• "As stated all too often they are not religions and use of the term none is not needed. There are numerous fields in the infobox that are not used when there isn't info to put in them. There is no reason to single this one out by using the term none."
• "Omit the parameter since atheism and agnosticism are not religions."
• "Theism and agnosticism are not religions. If a parameter isn't applicable, omit it. Simple."
• "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: key facts should be stated in a succinct manner, no need to show a non-fact."
• "If the person has no spouse, the box doesn’t say Spouse: None. No children doesn’t result in Children: None, or Children: None (hates kids). How is this different? "
• "'Atheist' should never be in the religion field."
• "Omit the parameter. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, so this line in the infobox does not apply"
• "It is asinine that this is even a question. We don't use fields when they don't apply."
• "Omit the parameter, as you would with any other non-applicable parameter. There is no reason to create an exception for Religion - since neither Atheism nor Agnosticism are religions, they shouldn't be put in the Religion field."
• "Atheism is the absence of religious belief. Omission of the parameter indicates the absence of religious belief,"
• "I cannot think of another instance where we would explicitly list someone's lack of trait."
• "we don't normally use "none" in any other infobox field and I cant see why this is an exception."
• "We don't include (for example) honorific_suffix=none, monuments=none, agent=none, notable_works=none, television=none, criminal_charge=none, awards=none, favourite_colour=none, football_team_supported=none (OK, I made the last two up, but they are about as "mandatory" as religion) etc, so why should religion be any different."
• "Surely we can be more editorially professional than listing a non xxxxxxxx person in a xxxxxxxx parameter. We are supposed to be striving for editorial excellence, not an inexorable dumbing down of the project."
• "Omit the parameter just seems common sense and in line with how non-applicable infobox parameters are generally handled."

Please note that every single person I quote above had a choice to choose "Religion: None (atheist) and rejected that option in favor of deleting the parameter. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think some of those people understand the problem, at least not as it applies to this case, which was not the one they were considering. It simply seems to me interesting to note (assuming it is accurate to note) that "state atheism" was a property of this entity, just as it would be to note that it was an officially Muslim or Buddhist entity. Clearly this is a personal obsession of yours, while for me it is a rather trivial matter, so I don't propose to waste time discussing it further unless anyone else wants to, but it seems sad that information is being removed from Wikipedia for this kind of ideological (or pedantic, I'm not sure which) reason, without any consideration for the needs and interests of readers. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more a "personal obsession" than the thousands of pages where I changed "this and and that" to "this and that" were. It is simply fixing errors on Wikipedia pages. Making snide comments aimed at those of us who do a lot of error correcting across multiple pages is inappropriate behavior.

Aside from the fact that atheism is not a religion, countries do not believe of not believe anything, and thus cannot have a religion even if you mistakenly believe that atheism is a religion and that bald is a hair color.

I would like to see religion on these pages treated the way we treat it at England#Religion and Montana Province#Religion. Those pages give the reader a true understanding of the religion in those geographic areas in a way that no one-line infobox entry every could. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"?

This has already been decided by consensus. See the closing summary at Request for Comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section 'Ideological influences' has essay-esque and opinionated tone to it. Within the section's text itself Weasel claims such as "obvious" or "becoming clear" are attributed onto the topic. As the section has references, it would be noteworthy to confirm whether the sources themselves have claims formatted in exactly the same opinionated way than in the Wikipedia article. Vmp4523 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section is of poor quality. [1] The ideology had Paris Stalinist/Marxist and Asian Maoist (also Thai) roots. The direct influence of the French revolution should be referenced. Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]