Talk:Khmer Rouge
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khmer Rouge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the Rebecca Gidley quote a misquote?
editSorry, first attempt at this sort of thing (wiki edit). Anyways, this section stood out to me as odd:
> According to author Rebecca Gidley, the Khmer Rouge "almost immediately erred by implementing a Maoist doctrine rather than following the Marxist–Leninist prescriptions".
Briefly checking the source, it seems that Rebecca Gidley is perhaps describing the *public political position of the the KRP*, NOT Rebecca's own belief.
That is, the book section is saying (paraphrase) "[The KRP, in a quest for political legitimacy] claimed that the KR almost immediately erred by implementing a Maoist doctrine rather than following the Marxist–Leninist prescriptions". It is not saying, again paraphrase "I, the historian writing about this, believe that the KR erred by ... almost immediately erred by implementing a Maoist doctrine rather than following the Marxist–Leninist prescriptions" (this is the claim in the current wiki article.)
Someone should double check my thought process and remove the quote if I'm right, or whatever wiki people do, I'm not sure. Don't want to touch a super important article like this without knowing the proper protocol. But I think this is bad. 99.229.176.124 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, the PRK, not the KRP 99.229.176.124 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also, actually, this whole section is kind of odd, right? I've never looked this closely at a wiki page, but basically the entire section (other than this misquote) is based on the Ben Kiernan source. I don't know if there's a way to "git blame" and see who wrote the section, but given the misquote, I'd be worried about balance / accuracy also. (this may be no big deal – I just don't know! maybe this is truly the only/best source on the ideology of the KR! but I think I should flag this, and I think people should be careful. Better safe than sorry!) 99.229.176.124 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)