This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of FARC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Probably not, but they are getting shot up by them.
The section about the US military seems very POV. 217.7.209.108 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://colombiareports.com/2008/05/27/farc-death-marulanda-doesnt-change-anything/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of FARC article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Probably not, but they are getting shot up by them.
The section about the US military seems very POV. 217.7.209.108 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://colombiareports.com/2008/05/27/farc-death-marulanda-doesnt-change-anything/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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)