Talk:Gavan McCormack

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Gavan McCormack is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rubbish removed concerning libellous statements to do with position on Pol Pot.

And a little bit more I see. What is libellous about what was said about GM? Either he said that there was no genocide in Cambodia or he did not. It looks to me as if he did. What is libellous about pointing that out? Lao Wai 14:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a little trivial effort I find what GM did say in 1980 was

McCormack, Gavan, The Kampuchean Revolution 1975-1978: The Problem of Knowing the Truth, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 10:1/2 (1980) pp. 20-21

Are we looking at a situation like that in post-war France, where, by the most conservative estimate, 30,000 to 40,000 people were massacred in the wake of liberation [sic] in 1945, but with social and class antagonism inflamed infinitely in the Kampuchean case .... Or are we looking at a clear case of genocide?

The evidence points to ... the existence of large-scale unnecessary violence and to a deep gulf separating the regime from the masses in whoe name it claimed to act, though not pointing to genocide.

McCormack, Gavan, The Kampuchean Revolution 1975-1978: The Problem of Knowing the Truth, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 10:1/2 (1980) p. 32

The notion of a regime that slaughtered millions, or engaged in genocide upon its own people is not one that the evidence so far substantiates.

So there you have it. It was either 30,000 to 40,000 (plus a bit more thanks to the Americans) or it was genocide and it was not genocide. What is that other than denying genocide in Kampuchea? The guy is not ashamed of what he said. He puts the links on his webpage. Why should anyone else be? Lao Wai 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as denying genocide outright. Clearly he is acknowledging large-scale killing. Scrutinising the evidence is not a denial.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]