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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
Khmer Rouge 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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects 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.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
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
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article was copy edited by Rintrah, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on February 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Sorry, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]