Talk:Cambodian People's Party

Purge

The infobox is very poorly sourced:

• Conservatism source broadly mentions Buddhism & maybe supporting of the status quo (we are talking about an authoritarian regime though)
• Economic liberalism source is an interview with a CPP MP (so primary source) and the question was will CPP use populism to get more voters, so the context even implies the opposite
• first big tent source: lists Cambodia as "HEGEMONIC ELECTORAL AUTHORITARIAN" alongside Angola?, Singapore? & Kuwait? - it does not state that CPP is actually big tent nor do the compared countries proof that
• second source Archived version does not mention it
• last source does not even mention it in any way

i will remove all of them but Conservatism (which i'll renaim to social conservatism) and big tent (without sources, until proper sources for any position can be found) Braganza (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Political Alignment “left wing”

It’s very strange that this page would make CPP as a leftwing party. Historically that might be the case but it doesn’t really fit the standards of Wikipedia to call them currently left wing.they are apart of “centrist democrat international”, they are monarchists, they support market economics, they are socially conservative. This page should move to define the CPP’s ideology to historically: Left wing current: center right to right wing.

If historical alignment is the main factor then a lot of the party pages across different countries would have to be heavily altered. 2600:4040:A7A5:D600:D938:5155:B841:CD73 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree, I swear it said as much in the past so I have to assume this was an error on someone's part. KristenReidVixen (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree myself. I also support changing the description to " historically: Left wing current: center right to right wing". Leegend99 (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This could only make sense if there are sources that call the party centre-right or right-wing currently. Are you able to find any? Brat Forelli🦊 15:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Does the party's platform, actions, and policies in government not suffice? Bearing in mind that the claim that its left-wing is also unsourced aside from vague mentions that it operates under a similar structure that it used to as far as party organization - which is not a hallmark of being left-wing.

It was marked as a centre-right to right-wing party prior to a very recent edit. KristenReidVixen (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

No, none of this suffices because what is necessary are reliable sources that would explicitly describe the party as centre-right or right-wing. To classify the party as right-wing based on our personal understanding of their platform or policies would be against Wikipedia's guidelines. This is known as Wikipedia:No original research:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

Moreover, a source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source. There are sources for "left-wing", but there are none for right-wing. You might disagree with the sources or argue that they no longer apply, but here's the thing - this needs to be proven too since Wikipedians are not reliable sources (WP:YANARS).

Lastly, if the article previously called the party right-wing but there were no sources for it, then no wonder it got changed. Brat Forelli🦊 06:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There were sources - both supporting calling it a big-tent party and calling it right-wing. If you go into history you should be able to view them, as they are public (for some reason I cannot link them here).

Sources are also provided with the labels of conservative and with the label of following a capitalist market economy, as well as being a monarchist party. The old sources also seem to be far better than the new ones, given that the new ones are just vague mentions rather than elaborations (One doesn't even call the party left-wing, but left-leaning - which could be comparatively to other parties, centre-left, or any number of other things). I would think that the criteria for what meets quality standards would be higher than finding any article or website that mentions the party is left-wing or right-wing and then leaves it at that. KristenReidVixen (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I would know since I am the dude who made it "big tent" and added soure for it. This was thrown away since the source, Routledge's The Handbook of Contemporary Cambodia, said this exactly: The CPP presents itself as a big tent in which any opponent is welcome, as long as they divest themselves of political ambitions, humbly accept their place in the scheme of ksae, and recognize the leadership and superior omnaich of Prime Minister Hun Sen. And someone rightfully pointed out that if the source does not call the party big tent but merely says that the party self-identifies as such, then this is not a good source.

I would think that the criteria for what meets quality standards would be higher than finding any article or website that mentions the party is left-wing or right-wing and then leaves it at that.

It is enough, as long as the source is reliable then it does not need to elaborate on why it classifies the party. Even in academic journals (which one of the sources is) and political science papers you see the practice of the author throwing a left-right classification and not fully explaining, if at all, the rationale. But then this is less of Wikipedia's problem and more of an academic one. After all, we merely reflect what the sources say, we do not right wrongs - WP:RGW.

Sources are also provided with the labels of conservative and with the label of following a capitalist market economy, as well as being a monarchist party.

Ok, but do any of these sources call the party right-wing? If not, then we are back to WP:OR. A recent example I can give you is from Talk:American Communist_Party (2024)#Syncretic left-right. A Wikipedia user here made an elaborate case based on sources why this American Communist Party in question should be labelled "syncretic". Czello, probably one of our most experienced active editor on political parties, shut it down with a simple remark: Okay, but none of these sources use that word, however. That is what "no original research" rule is about. If such description is not even used, then we do not have a case. I certainly do not see why being conservative, capitalist and monarchist would automatically mean right-wing.

One doesn't even call the party left-wing, but left-leaning - which could be comparatively to other parties, centre-left, or any number of other things

What the source clearly does is placing the party on the left. Is your proposal then to make it "Centre-left to left-wing" then? It's not, so this is irrelevant and does not get us any closer to the right-wing classification. Brat Forelli🦊 09:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It is a bit odd that you seem to feel that a party's political positioning, i.e. whether its left or right, is completely divorced from its ideological tenants and its real-world and enacted policies. Especially given that left-wing and right-wing have academic definitions. I understand Wikipedia specifically eschews the credentials of its users - however I don't think its out of line for me to point that out given my background. Left-wing and right-wing do mean things and those things have established definitions already, ones that can be verified, referenced, sourced, and cited. Being capitalist, conservative, and right-wing would - by the definition of what right-wing and left-wing are academically (see, Encyclopedia Britannica's articles on this).

In any case, I will do my best to keep this from running into gish gallop territory.

Things like Encyclopedia Britannica (a very famous and very trustworthy Encyclopedia) mention specifically that the CPP is a non-communist party in its article for Cambodia's political process. Further "THE CAMBODIAN PEOPLE'S PARTY: Where Has It Come From, Where Is It Going?" on JSTOR mentions that the party has both abandoned its position of communism and socialism, and that internal factions that had ties to these groups have long-since lost power. Since you are in University still (unfortunately after graduating here in the US, you can no longer get access to these journals for free) you should also be able to go deeper into the article where on page 110 it explicitly states that ideologically the party is not dissimilar to the position of the FUNCINPEC.

Even further, "The Nature and Role of Ideology in the Modern Cambodian State" uses neither left or right to define the party and explicitly says it follows neither - instead focusing on securing authority and power (page 395). This article can also be found on JSTOR. "The Cambodian People’s Party: History and Political Transformation" also states that its position is neither left nor right, instead focusing on political pragmatism to maintain power and authority.

Note there is also precedent for being more particular about these things, at least based on other articles. For the vast quantity of sources calling the Democratic Party in the US a communist-loving far-left party it is centre-left, and for all those decrying Christian Socialism as paternalistic, parties that follow it are still firmly labeled left-wing and organizations following it (Like the Poor People's Campaign in the US South) are also associated with the left even when they attempt outreach to religiously conservative communities.

I do believe that the initial 'big tent' designation was more than justified, with even 'center to right-wing' being justified. However I can't find a single actual academic source calling it in modern times is left-wing or saying it maintains a commitment to anything that, according to academic real definitions of left-wing would make it such. The two sources provided right now are from a news outlet and not an academic source and an article referencing a past event (the quoted text is using past-tense, referencing Sen's capture of the party which happened some time ago now. It may have been left-wing in the past, but it is not anymore.).

I understand that the label of right-wing and left-wing are weaponized at times in some debate settings to try to distance one from parties that share a political position to themselves, or draw themselves closer to such - however emotion should not be a factor here if it might be influencing things. The CPP, like many formerly communist parties, has long since abandoned its left-wing roots.

As an aside.

Forgive that I can't link - I'd say its because I'm a fox, but that clearly isn't the case since you seem blessed with the ability to link things just fine. KristenReidVixen (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of the Cambodian People's Party.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Splitting off the KPRP section

As of right now the page is really bloated and looks incredibly unsightly. The current CPP is not the same as the KPRP and as such the pages should be split with a new page dedicated entirely to the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party. It may be small but it'd be a lot better than how the page is now. NorthTension (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Helper201 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I also would support it, due the same reasons. MarketFruit (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Also many stuff could be added to it, I found many good sources, which talk about the party, the length wouldn't be a problem. MarketFruit (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Good, would you want to begin the new page? NorthTension (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Yea why not. MarketFruit (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Before I start, do you think the article should include the party with the same name which existed from 1951 until 1953? MarketFruit (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)