Talk:History of FARC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Images[edit]

None of the pictures on this page are useful -- they are barely related to the military of the FARC-EP. The FARC does not have planes and helicopters. --Descendall 22:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, but they are getting shot up by them.

Not by those exact planes and helicopters they aren't, as can be easily proven by simply googling up which countries have them and/or where they operate. Juancarlos2004 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perception of US military[edit]

The section about the US military seems very POV. 217.7.209.108 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only POV, but barely relevant, or at least not deserving of the attention it gets in the article. Why are the F-22 and Apache mentioned at all? The Colombian military doesn't have them, and the FARC certainly doesn't. And the US military doesn't wage psyops through the Discovery Channel.

Reliability of Juan Guillermo Ferro Medina[edit]

Here's a page with his Curriculum Vitae and academic credentials:

http://www.ces.uc.pt/emancipa/cv/gen/ferro.html

And here's a description of L’Ordinaire Latino-américain as a scholarly journal:

http://www.latindex.unam.mx/buscador/ficRev.html?folio=15700&opcion=1

I would say that makes him a reliable source. That said, the section is currently only reflecting a small part of the information in the article cited and this could be expanded. Any thoughts or comments? Juancarlos2004 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly seems like a reliable source to me, in general (although, you can't make blanket claims about reliability). I too would very much like to see this section expanded more. However, I think that we should work on finding multiple sources, and make sure that we include all significant points of view. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both counts. I understand that reliability can't be absolute, strictly speaking, but at the very least this clearly isn't an inherently unreliable source. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and POV Concerns[edit]

First of all, it would be cynical of me to say anything without acknowledging that Jrtayloriv has provided most of the recent contributions and his intention to improve this article is quite admirable. What's more, most of these contributions have been properly sourced. And finally, it is also true that the article is currently under construction and what we see right now doesn't necessarily reflect its final state.

Nevertheless, I think there must be a lot of caution with respect to how the information is presented, since while there is scholarly agreement about many of the generalities of the history of FARC and that of Colombia as a whole, there are different interpretations, different details (figures, dates, names, motivations) and specific nuances that shouldn't be ignored or, alternatively, taken for granted. There is more than one school of thought and, for example, not all scholars agree about such things as the total number of dead during La Violencia, how many people (soldiers, guerrillas and villagers) were in fact present during the fall of Marquetalia, to what extent did the National Front receive only "minor" modifications after 1974 when what came later was more about parity in representation rather than "alternation" in the strict sense, the specific politics and policies of the different administrations and their effects (are all of them considered uniformly negative to the point of being faceless, I wonder?), or even the date when FARC was founded (just a bit of additional research and verification would reveal that, formally speaking, it didn't happen until 1966...).

The way the first two sections of the historical narrative, in particular, are right now...it would seem we have the PCC and the impoverished on one side, clearly working for their rights and the greater good, with the government and the entire political establishment on the other, clearly working for greater greed. This is, in fact, an interpretation that is endorsed by some / many of the scholars cited and it would be a lie to argue there isn't some truth to that (not as a matter of dreaded "original research" but as a description of the critical stance most historians maintain towards Colombian history during the National Front period as a whole, even among those who don't sympathize with FARC or their struggle). But is that the only interpretation in existence among the academic community, regardless of whether we are considering only those who have written in English as opposed to Spanish (which opens up another can of worms, I'm sure, but it's an important one nonetheless given the subject at hand)? Were there no other political or rational actors involved, if not necessarily on an individual basis since that wouldn't always be convenient (notable exceptions aside) then at least collectively (factions, parties, dissidences)? I think stepping back and noticing that some of these things need to be addressed is important.

This is an article about FARC's history, yes, but that doesn't mean everything else outside of the PCC + FARC vs. Colombian State conflict suddenly ceased to exist. That's not even true of all of the academic works written about FARC either, since different authors include different details, events and facts from the period along with their own views on the subject. The bulk of this information belongs in other articles, by all means, but even subtle modifications to what are currently absolute statements and brief references aren't out of the question.

In addition...it's also not clear, in some cases such as the section about Marquetalia, if the cited source is actually citing someone else's point of view, for instance, or if all the other scholars and authors at the end of the paragraph share the same exact description and evaluation of the situation (including each of the dates and figures employed). Things like this should be made clearer and not presented as absolute facts about which there isn't any disagreement, even tacit, among the scholars cited. In terms of POV...for the purposes of balance and reducing or preventing undue weight, perhaps just -as if not more- important as what has been made explicit is what remains implicit due to lack of information.

I, absolutely, realize it's easy for me to stand around and write something like this without going ahead and contributing sources of my own, in both English and Spanish, but I will get around to that sooner or later. Nevertheless, I feel it is still necessary to discuss this in the meanwhile. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make some very valuable points. I'm sure there are things that I am leaving out, due to the books and articles I am reading leaving things out, and due to my own worldview causing me to give importance to certain things and not to others. A different person with different views, and a different set of sources will likely see other things that need to be added, expanded, rewritten, or removed.
As far as the FARC's creation date, I'm pretty sure you are right about that, and this should be explained. I actually have a good history book with me right now, that I believe goes into this. I'll update this as soon as possible. I also agree with you that we should give a range of numbers dead in La Violencia, due to disagreement (although it would be nice to come up with a "most common" figure, taken from some sort of academic survey). I also think that the current section on Marquetalia is incorrect in many ways. With what I know now, I think the section should be presented very differently. I haven't gotten around to it yet, because I was working through the article in chronological order, but I certainly plan to.
As far as the article seeming like "peasants and low-wage laborers" vs. "entire political establishment", I think that's a bit loaded, and would have said "peasants" vs. "wealthy landowning and urban industrial class", since the peasants were part of the political establishment. However, while I certainly see things this way, and all of the history texts/articles I've read so far seem to see things this way, I'm very open to alternative explanations, assuming that they are high-quality sources.
As far as Spanish-language sources, I've been browsing through several, and haven't seen a notable difference, in general, between the viewpoints of Spanish-speaking vs. English-speaking scholars. But I've admittedly not looked at nearly as many of these as I have English-language sources (my Spanish is functional, but it's definitely a slow going, dictionary-assisted affair).
Anyhow, thanks for being civil, even in disagreement. Looking forward to working with you on this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-FARC rallies[edit]

In all honesty, I don't think removing specific information about who said what and replacing that with a general summary without identifying the critics and their respective interpretations and opinions is helpful or, for that matter, balanced.

Each of the three sources is saying something slightly to moderately different, not making the same exact points.

What's more, the redundancy introduced seems to fall within the definition of undue weight. Why speak of "several authors" when we can, in fact, just say who they are right from the start? All of them are critics, most certainly, but their words can speak for themselves.

In addition, I think the paragraph about the University of Salzburg analysis is visibly harmed by those modifications that seek to highlight only its criticism and not including, at the very least, its acknowledgment of the usefulness -however limited, privilege or exclusive- of social networking. The study is making several points, not just a blanket dismissal.

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I would say it's fairly reasonable to try and stick to the source as much as possible without introducing, unless absolutely necessary, the potential for mistakes in interpretation such as, for example, making light of the subtle difference between how many Colombians have "regular" Internet access (as mentioned in the original study, in fact) and Internet access in general. They aren't equivalent terms and the removal of a single word leads to a distinct interpretation. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I see what you are saying, as far as the study by Neumayer and Raffl, and have re-inserted the parts about social networking being beneficial for organizing protests. And since it is not all criticism, as you pointed out, I have moved it into a separate paragraph.
As far as my reasoning for grouping the authors into one bunch like that, it is because I tried to focus on things that all of them were saying, so that I could make it more concise, and since each of them repeated things that all the others said, it would take up too much space to repeat everything once for each author. So I figured that we should focus on those things that all of them said, and just group them into a single bunch.
You said All of them are critics, most certainly, but their words can speak for themselves. -- Yes, their words could speak for themselves, but they each said many of the same things in different words, and I'm trying not to give them undue weight by extensively quoting each of them. Their criticisms are notable, but not as much as others, and I am trying to keep it down to one sentence. Also, I feel that the selection of words that you chose was not representative of the main thrust of their arguments which were: (a) that the protests were not representative of the population, (b) that the protests were not critical of or were even supportive of paramilitary and government violence, even though these groups are responsible for the large majority of atrocities, and (c) that business and government elites played a heavy role in promoting, and supporting the protests ... as long as these things are covered clearly, concisely, and directly not through vague quotations, I would welcome changes. But these are clearly the "meat" of the opposition's arguments, and I don't think they should be obscured.
And I don't think that by bunching them up, that I have not identified them -- they are clearly identified by the citations which immediately follow that sentence. Again, I am trying to keep the less notable criticisms down to a single line, and I think this is the best way to do it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know we were able to agree about a couple of things, at the very least.
Past a certain point this may start to become a matter of personal interpretations and, by extension, preferences, but let's see...I don't believe all of the sources were making the same arguments, which is part of why my selection of words didn't quite match yours.
Not all of them are directly citing paramilitary involvement in the protests or, for instance, the lack of criticism for government and/or paramilitary violence as the reason for their opposition. We could quote each of the sources here, but I trust that's not necessary at the moment.
(Although one cannot honestly deny that there have been plenty of anti-government protests where nobody says a word about FARC, or protests where FARC expresses their own solidarity with the claims involved and what have you, so that part of the argument definitely cuts both ways... I'd rather see more protests against everything, overall, regardless of whether or not a particular march condemns only one side at any given time...but I digress. I'll never be in a position to change how people choose to handle this stuff anyway)
You've expanded on the PDA's position by including Gaviria's words, something I have absolutely no problem with as that is pretty much what he said (and the guy does have a point, regardless of what I've just said above). Still, the same points don't necessarily apply to everyone else, at least not when considered individually instead of collectively.
In any case, however...I think that the main points of those who supported the march (or even what they said in response to the criticism) need some additional elaboration too, since Mr. Morales and his individual complaint against Chávez isn't necessarily that representative either. There were other reasons involved. I would say that more could be done in that direction instead. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Juan -- I like very much the edits that you made to the anti-FARC section[1]. I think your new version reads much better, and sounds much more balanced.
I agree that the main points of the protesters need to be covered much more extensively. I have added a bit on Morales views, and expanded a bit more about the development of the group, and was about to start putting more viewpoints in from major figures who supported the protest, including Vice President Santos and others.
I'd also like to elaborate a bit more on the prisoner exchange, both from the perspective of the supporters, and from the people who thought that the timing of the protests might interfere with negotiations for a hostage release.
I'll try to see if I can adjust the sentence regarding paramilitary involvement to deal with your concerns. I will try to balance out concision with making sure that everything is attributed as accurately as possible. I don't think I'll get to it tonight (it's 1:26 AM here, and I'm very tired ...), but if I don't, then I'll deal with it sometime in the morning.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of FARC. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of FARC. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of FARC. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_FARC&oldid=1207551850"