Talk:Pol Pot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pol Pots religious views[edit]

216.58.3.169 has made 2 undos: (-72)‎ . . (Changed the "Religion" info. in the bio. box's personal details sections to "None". Previous disagreements of him being buddhist or atheist aside, factually, if it is agreed as in the current revision that he was an atheist, atheism is not a religion) (-72)‎ . . (Undid revision 513087843 by Brunswicknic (talk) Atheism is a position on a singular issue exactly opposite deism (not theism, though it precludes it) & says nothing about morality/lifestyle) I have undone those undos for the following reasoning. Wikipedia lists Athiesm in the religion projects. Atheism is a stand on religion, and therefore to list his religion as none is to deny all atheists their standpoint on religion. As I said in my undo of anonymous's first undo "The box gives his religious position, if atheism is not about religion, what is it?" The statement about 'a singular issue' and lack of 'morality/lifestyle' of atheism is interesting, I believe it is the reflects a position of Anti-Atheism, of intolerance toward atheism. Any reading of atheist thinking, or even Wikipedia's atheism page would show this statement to untrue I believe the edits to this page are the result of a predetermined POV and do not reflect an understanding of the 'religion' info in the bio box, or of the philosophy of religion. Thank you 216.58.3.169 for editing in the category of atheist on this page Brunswicknic (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell cares what his religion was. He murdered millions of people. Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)



I have (and will continue to) undo Bunswicknic's classification of atheism as a religion on a tangentially related page to the concept(s).

Wikipedia lists Atheism as a -related portal- to the religion portal (though even if it didn't, it still wouldn't make you right, for multiple reasons).

Atheism is a stand on religion, and therefore to list his religion as none is to deny all atheists their standpoint on religion.

This is a complete non sequitur. You have just stated that an opinion/position on deism/religion, equates to being a religion.

That is utter-nonsense and is entirely invalid.

Your next statement is off-topic, but I will respond to it here anyway -

The statement about 'a singular issue' and lack of 'morality/lifestyle' of atheism is interesting, I believe it is the reflects a position of Anti-Atheism, of intolerance toward atheism.

Again, this is completely untrue, this is an incomplete quotation which twists it's meaning towards supporting your own misinterpretation, which would appear to be a result of your own prejudices.

The fact that atheism implies no moral/ethical/lifestyle guideline instructions within it's scope is not a criticism of atheism or atheists, merely a fact that is often misunderstood by the religious-minded.

I did not say, or imply, that atheists are lacking in morality or lifestyle choices.

Your confusion seems to stem from the misunderstanding that atheism is not religion.

Religion touches upon many subjects/areas of human thought. As related to this topic of conversation, it informs both a position on the supernatural (life's origins, a creator, etc.) and moral guidelines (the ten commandments, etc.).

Atheism only concerns itself with the question of the supernatural (or more specifically, deism). That is the entirety of it's scope, in other words, atheism has a much more limited scope in comparison to religion, whose scope is broad.

This means that atheists are only in general agreement with respect to their views on the supernatural, it implies nothing further.

Ethical/moral and lifestyle choices are a separate issue, any atheist is free to embrace an ethical or highly ritualistic lifestyle or a lifestyle of minimal concern for such concepts (or anything in between) and still be called an atheist.

Ex: All atheists are free to be pacifists, militant, vegetarian, omnivorous, humble, brash, respectful, contemptuous of authority, law abiding, sadistic, altruistic, etc. because the concepts have no relation to atheism.

Just as they can be black, white, male, female, 6'1" or have blonde hair; things that have nothing to do with atheism.

Atheism only describes a person's outlook on the supernatural/deities, it is not a sufficient descriptor of person's entire worldview/life stance, unlike a religious affiliation which contains a far more broadly defined set of values within the various types of religions/religious associations, as compared to atheism.


Any reading of atheist thinking, or even Wikipedia's atheism page would show this statement to untrue I believe the edits to this page are the result of a predetermined POV and do not reflect an understanding of the 'religion' info in the bio box, or of the philosophy of religion.

I believe I have shown above your own misinterpretation of the issue as well as your completely off-topic misinterpretation/wilful twisting of my viewpoint (which is a distraction from the core issue of debate).

Thank you 216.58.3.169 for editing in the category of atheist on this page.

This further exemplifies your misunderstanding of the issue. I did not edit in the category of "atheist", I edited in the category of "Religion", which incorrectly listed "atheist" as a valid attribute in this category.


I have explained this distinction between religion and atheism to you as best as I am able, if still unwilling or unable to accept my position or that of the Wikipedia Atheism portal on this matter, I can only suggest to you that you attempt your reclassification of the terms "atheist"/"atheism" on the Atheist portal as a type of religion and see what sort of reaction your choice garners there instead of attempting to do so with the term in obscure corners of Wikipedia.

(For example: Have you noticed that there is no "Religion: Atheism" category in the bio-box for Richard Dawkins' Wikipedia page?)

To offer my own further solution to this issue, I propose that both the category of "Religion" and the attributes of "Atheist/None" simply be deleted from the page.

I believe Brunswicknic's issue stems from the fact that he wishes to incorporate Pol Pot's purported atheism into the article, as he believes it to be relevant, which may well be, but I take issue with the crude and inaccurate way in which it was done.

I suggest that Brunswicknic or others feeling this information to be relevant find some way to incorporate it within the body of the article itself if they can find some way in which to do so that displays relevance.

If this cannot be agreed upon then I would request moderator intervention for this issue.


I should also note here, that this may be unnecessary and already covered by the editor "136.145.209.2" adding this page/Pol Pot under the category of "Atheists" at the bottom of the article.

Also, in response to "136.145.209.2"'s commentary towards me on the History page.

He was a marxist atheist. His ideology included atheism. Sorry, facts.

I never denied that he was an atheist, only that atheism was a religion, I don't think I could have been clearer. Though I would also add that while that may be true, that of course would mean his atheism was only an aspect of his Marxist-Leninist ideology, as atheism itself does not contain sufficient enough scope to be considered an ideology (likewise similar to disbelief in unicorns and the Tooth Fairy).

In any case, I am content for the moment not to contest that change (though I'm not sure that it's relevant frankly), as I am no expert on Pol Pot himself, though in the little reading I have done on him I have found quite a bit of debate on the strength of his atheism, just to make my position clear, but as I say, I don't have enough knowledge in this area to offer an informed opinion so I will leave that issue to others.

--216.58.3.169 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained really well above- "Atheism" is not in any way a religion and should not be listed as Pol Pot's "religion." I changed it back to "None." Honestly getting rid of the whole line about Religion would be even better as it's not relevant unless you can build it into the context of the article somewhere. Otherwise it's only included here to give theists an opportunity to hold Pol Pot up as an example of how evil atheists are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trcrev (talkcontribs) 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

QUOTE: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." SOURCE: Closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What Does "Pol Pot" mean?[edit]

...and how did Pol Pot come to use it? (If this is here and I missed it, a thousand apologies. This topic deserves better coverage.

Basesurge (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Pol Pot was just his chosen nom de guerre. It has no meaning in Khmer. The first paragraph in the "Leader of Kampuchea" subsection of the article gives two possible "meanings", but the first is just unsourced supposition and the second is one author's poor attempt (in that it demonstrates his lack of knowledge regarding written Khmer) to find meaning. "Pol" sounds like an old word for the Pear people that was applied to captives similar to "slave" (see pg 2 here) but that word is derived from Sanskrit bala, "army, guard" and is spelled in Khmer very differently from Pol Pot's name. This NY Times article about his death confirms that the name is just a name chosen for anonymity and has no particular meaning.
As for how he came to use it, he adopted it sometime before 1970 when the Khmer Rouge movement gained serious momentum after the Lon Nol coup. Noms de gurre are usually adopted to signify a new beginning, maintain anonymity, obscure past connections (in this case to his wealthy higher-class background), and/or to protect family members from retribution. All of these reasons probably applied to Pol Pot.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pol Pot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph doesn't provide the most notable context[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pol Pot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)