Talk:Khmer Rouge Tribunal

Cambodia High‑importance

Khmer Rouge Tribunal 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 articles

High

This article has been rated as High-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]

International relations: United Nations / Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance).

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Notice date: 23 September 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Untitled

This article is certainly required on Wikipedia - I find it difficult to understand how anyone could tag this for speedy deletion - is seeking some form of justice for the crimes of one of the most notorious regimes in modern history somehow not notable enough? Paxse 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mess

The articles on Cambodia are really a mess. A large part of this article has nothing to do with the Cambodia Tribunal, and belongs, if anywhere, in Khmer Rouge. On the other hand, in the Khmer Rouge article data on the tribunal are given which really belong here.

Moreover, there are articles on: *Democratic Kampuchea, *Communist Party of Kampuchea, *Party of Democratic Kampuchea, *National Army of Democratic Kampuchea, *Communist Youth League of Kampuchea. There is a tremendous overlap. I suspect that the paragraph 'Background' should be removed here at least. But a further clean-up is certainly needed. Paul kuiper NL 16:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least in THIS article the clean-up has been done. I have removed 'Background' and updated the data on the Tribunal. This article is now certainly better. But much more remains to be done about the other articles on Cambodia. Paul kuiper NL 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, welcome to the Cambodia articles and thanks for your great work on this one. The mess is my fault. I expanded this article very roughly with a couple of quick cut and pastes from other W'pedia articles mentioning the tribunal. At the time it was a new article created by a new editor that was tagged for speedy deletion. Some additional text and some references were needed quickly to save it from extinction. I hoped somebody would rewrite and sort out the mess with more relevant info - which you've now done. Good job! Cheers, Paxse 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Paxse, thanks for this comment. I had been wondering what had caused so much double text to be in existence in these articles, so I appreciate your explanation. Another idea that I have is that the title of this article might better be: Cambodia Tribunal. Bye, Paul kuiper NL 02:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be named Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia? Tkelly7

Corrected the international co-prosecutor: Petit resigned in 2009 and Cayley replaced him. A. Dal Poz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.84.134 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the sub-section titled 'The Hearing'

I propose that the sub-section titled 'The Hearing' be either removed or significantly rewritten. While the hearings are on-going, there is not enough distance of time to assess whether every little blip in the media about what is happening at the hearing is worth writing about for this Wikipedia entry. Instead of documenting every twist and turn in the long road to the completion of the hearing, I suggest that we wait for the trial to be completed before writing a paragraph or two about what happened during the trial. -- Thaths (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People's Revolutionary Tribunal of 1979

I have created a People's Revolutionary Tribunal (Cambodia) wikipedia entry for the 1979 trial of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary. Contributions to that entry welcome. -- Thaths (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization - by Cases or Defendants?

I'd like to make it more clear that the prosecution is divided into 4 cases (case 1 being Duch, 2 being the current named defendants, and 3 and 4 being defendants who are not yet named). Anyone have any ideas on how to organize this?

Also, I thought it would be a good idea to add the defence lawyers for the defendants, as we already have the prosecutors. I attached them to the paragraphs on each individual defendant because I thought a separate chart would be cumbersome.

Fordm48 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)fordm48[reply]

article

The article in Foreign Policy[1] has a lot on Siegfried Blunk, who sounds like he could be worth having a separate article... AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of charges per crime in the "indictees" table

How is it possible to work out how many charges there are per crime in the "indictees" table? Due to the way in which the Closing Orders (Indictments) are structured and written, it's impossible to discern each separate charge of each crime, so how can it be done? Thehistorian10 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The counts against the accused are listed in the closing orders under the section entitled "dispositive". In Case 001 it is on page 44 and in Case 002 it is on pages 397–8. – Zntrip 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ECCC also made available the Public version of the Rule 66 Final Submission in regards to Duch - check page 85. It's located here:

http://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/documents/courtdoc/Rule_54_Public_Information_re_Final_Submission.pdf

As a result of reading this, I modified the "crimes against humanity" and added in the two crimes against Cambodian law listed in that Submission.

I have also reread the dispositive in the 002 Closing Orders and amended the number of counts per crime as appropriate.

The Historian (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move request: Khmer Rouge Tribunal

I recommend that this page be moved to the abovenamed title since that complies with WP:COMMONNAME. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 02:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page to Khmer Rouge Tribunal. I will work on fixing re-directs and other incoming links. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert the move (or ask for it to be done). This page move breaks tradition, as there are other Tribunals (the ICTY, ICTR, STL) whose names have not been substituted for their common names. Taking the ICTY as an example, under your reasoning, ICTY should be renamed as Yugoslav Tribunal, since that is a common name for it in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This has not yet happened. Further, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon - by your reasoning - should be renamed "Hariri Tribunal", since that is one of its common names.

The Historian (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing a note here. I believe your move is inappropriate and out of process, since the proposal was posted here for over five days and during that time you did not send in a comment. Once the page move has been made, it is not advisable to make the move yourself before actually inviting the original nominator to a discussion. I suggest you revert yourself and explain why applying WP:COMMONNAME is a misapplication here, and why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a proper argument which should apply in this case as well. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that WP:COMMONNAME cannot apply in this case, as if it were to apply to this case, then - for the case of consistency - it should be applied to the ICTR, ICTY and STL (whose names would become the Yugoslav Tribunal, the Rwanda Tribunal and the Hariri Tribunal respectively). I was never arguing in favour of WP:OSE - I was merely citing those articles just to cite examples to support my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no expertise in the matters of the other tribunals you have mentioned above (viz. Yugoslav Tribunal, the Rwanda Tribunal and the Hariri Tribunal. WP:COMMONNAME is policy on Wikipedia which has been determined through consensus and practice. Unless there is a internal conflict between policies, there is no reason as to why article topics should not go by their common names or the most commonly used terms of reference. In case of the ECCC, the "Khmer Rouge Tribunal" is by far the most commonly used name. If you believe that the other courts you mentioned have common names differing from their official names, I would suggest that you go ahead and propose renaming of those pages as well on their talk page. Unilaterally reverting a change made by an established user is impolite at best. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have undone your move since you did not bother to return and discuss the issue on the talk page. In the future, please remember to discuss first and move the article later. See the notice above placed by me which solicits opinions from those who may be interested in discussing the article topic. I moved the article when there was no opposition to the proposal. Please remember that un-constructive editing often leads to revocation of editing privileges. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the move to "Khmer Rouge Tribunal" was appropriate. This has never been the name of the Court and the name is never used as a proper noun. News media may refer to the "Khmer Rouge tribunal" or "Cambodia tribunal" but it is never used in place of the proper name ("Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia"). Indeed, "Khmer Rouge tribunal" is akin to a colloquialism, which is not the same as WP:COMMONNAME. – Zntrip 20:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do understand what the word "colloquial" means. The term "Khmer Rouge Tribunal" has been used widely by the mainstream media, in fact, most of the sources available on the subject discuss the entity as the "Khmer Rouge Tribunal" rather than with its official name. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 02:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you may have misunderstood me. I do recognize that the term is popularly used. However, it is not used as a proper noun. The phrase "Khmer Rouge" simply acts as an adjective in describing the tribunal. The phrase seems to be used as much as "Cambodia tribunal", "UN-backed tribunal", and "war crimes tribunal". All of these are descriptive phrases used in place of the Court's official name. Such phrases are not the same thing as a name. For instance, many news organizations refer to the International Atomic Energy Agency as "the UN nuclear watchdog", however none of those organizations claim to be referring to the Agency by its name. WP:COMMONNAME refers to instances where the subject is addressed by a specific name, not a descriptive phrase. Therefore, I believe that "Khmer Rouge Tribunal" is not an appropriate article title. – Zntrip 03:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and comments, Zntrip. I appreciate it, and I believe you may be right. Let us please wait for 2-3 days and see if there is further discussion on the issue, and if not then we can move the article back to its original title. Thanks and regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Khmer Rouge Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610105051/http://www.eccc.gov.kh:80/en/ocij to http://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/ocij

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khmer Rouge Tribunal. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Khmer Rouge Tribunal. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Achievements of the Tribunal and Responses to Criticism

This section has huge issues with NPOV. It reads like particularly flowery journalism. 67.189.13.137 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search reveals that it is flowery journalism; the first paragraph was copied from The Huffington Post nearly word for word. I opted to delete this section as it restated

previous points in the article and blatantly violated NPOV with nothing worth saving. SWL36 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]