This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This could add Venezuela to the EU and US list of Sponsors of terror. Chavez has responded by denouncing FARC. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/world/americas/08venez.html?_r=1&ref=americas&oref=slogin I do not know where to add this what the correct place how should it be incorporated and should it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.181.23 ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Possibility of prisoner exchange with the government" it says towards the end, speaking I believe of the year 2004: "On December 2, the government announced the pardon of 23 FARC prisoners, to encourage a reciprocal move. The FARC ignored the gesture, and the 23 rebels released were all of low rank and had promised not to rejoin the armed struggle. The government is hoping to win the release of dozens of hostages, including three US citizens."
Are these the three that were released on 2 July 2008? If so it should be updated or the phrase "including three US citizens" should be dropped.
- Beardc ( talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please never forget:
Tacueyó Nov/85 - Jan/86, 164 deaths. http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-296278
Machuca October 17 / 1998 , 100 deaths. http://www.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Marzo072007/eln_conden.html
Bojayá May 2 / 2002 , 119 deaths. http://www.viernesgigante.com/Especiales/Bojaya/Bojaya_1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.112.210 ( talk) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
this article presently stands at 127k. that's a bit hefty... i think someone some of these sections need to be broken out into their own articles a bit more aggressively. pauli133 ( talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
and:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1030
Jan Erik Proletaire ( talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
i have changed this as it siad that sinn fein was the political wing of the ira. this is untrue and a gross generalistation. back in the sevendys it was for the PIRA but the date was 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.123.75 ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Would like to bring to the attention of everyone that parts of the article and the name of FARC in both Spanish and English have been modified inserting the word "coward" and making direct references of the FARC as a 'Chavistas' organisation. I demand the the restoration of the original terms and names of the FARC deleting any reference of the FARC as cowardly and the elimination of all references of the FARC as a 'Chavistas' organisation for the sake of neutrality of the article. XRobertox ( talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Added information from BBC news which states that the anti-FARC rallies were in the thousands http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7516533.stm , VOA news states tens of thousands http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-02-04-voa35-66627822.html, and Al Jazeera states hundreds of thousands http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/07/20087201614073667.html
2. Financing section needs citations or it should be removed.
3. Drug trafficking allegations need citations.
XXVII ( talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In response to the above.
That's a mere caption and for a different July 20 rally. You seem to have mixed up the two. The BBC itself acknowledges hundreds of thousands in its actual article but even cites an estimate of over a million for just Bogotá alone on February 4th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7225824.stm
Other sources do speak of millions and/or reiterate the above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020403019.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22998957/
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/colombians.take.to.streets.in.huge.antifarc.march/16661.htm
Juancarlos2004 ( talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The Activities section is full of sentences without citations, why is still on? And what about that little kid picture, is it there to shock the viewers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.17.57 ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, I stopped by yesterday to make a tiny change to the Criticism section since it consisted of a single subsection about the rallies. The article has radically shifted since then. My compliments to User:Jrtayloriv for turning unsourced anti-FARC bits into a sourced FARC apologetics piece (cf. drug trafficking version 1 and version 2). Perhaps someone can make a version between the two that actually adheres to NPOV? ;-) Recognizance ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the third paragraph:
Suggesting instead:
Noting that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia
and also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia
I would suggest that FARC should be linked to La Violencia and/or the Liberal party. Was not Manuel Marulanda a member of the Liberal Party before he got disillusioned and left to start his movement, a movement of peasants, landless peasants? Was it not demand for land reforms who started civil war even before La Violencia? Ie some details about FARCs origin. Who were they and why? The ongoing struggle for land to the poor peasants etc. The interest of the landowners to fight back... Jan Erik Proletaire ( talk) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
did not the FARC form long after La Violence ended, wish I could find the name of the event in which the government attacked settlements set up with in Colombia and declared themselves self governed, it was this even that lead to the forming of the FARC if I have my history right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.200.20 ( talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
At 96kb, the article is on the long side. A lot of this is due to excessive detail in the history section; it needs to be summarised much more briefly, with more of the details left for the History of FARC article. This will not be easy to do, but it will be much kinder to the reader. Rd232 talk 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should standardize in all articles and call them either FARC or FARC-EP. What do you think? -- Phil5329 ( talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, We should never use th "EP". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.245.187 ( talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is largely a Wikipedia-age-old problem of using official or common names. It would seem the trend, according to this article, is to use the FARC-EP. My guess is someone wanted to emphasize they are a de jure people's army and fight for the people. Like almost every country in the modern world... Int21h ( talk) 19:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been studying the FARC for almost a decade, and just returned from a research trip to Colombia. I've also been an advisor in Colombia for a year living with and training the Colombian Army. The entries on this page are so biased they make the page almost unpalatable and inappropriate given the scholarly framework of Wikipedia. Expect changes from me. Maestrodesalto ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Whether in the original content or in edits, somebody is injecting a lot of bias into descriptions of FARC - clearly someone politically opposed to the group. Judgmental adjectives, unverified generalized claims, etc. For example they said the whole country celebrated when the government killed Mono Jojoy. That's clearly unverifiable and comes from a POV. I've removed a few such items so far, but have hit a language barrier on another one. The following quote references an article that does not contain the quote:
However the linked article contains an embedded news video in which President Santos speaks in Spanish about the operation to kill Mono Jojoy. My Spanish isn't very good, so I can't verify whether he says the quote attributed to him here and don't know whether it was correctly translated if so. I tried to listen for the words "doce" and "catorce" (12 and 14) and don't think I heard them. Given the bias already removed from this section, it would be good if a Spanish speaker could verify whether Santos says in the video what the author of this section presents here. Kookoobirdz ( talk) 16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, the two corrections I have made so far, I marked as minor edits. This was in error. According to the definition, they are major edits. Kookoobirdz ( talk) 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The article comes across as unbalanced and pov. "FARC-EP is a peasant army" is the second lead, while its status as violent non-state actor and terrorist organization is discussed many paragraphs later, immediately (publicly!!!) denied by president Chavez. Perhaps someone can set the right balance - I'm not talking anything extreme, just using a fair tone - and then remove the warning. gidonb ( talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv: I want to ask why you removed the tags? Do you think the article is neutral like this? It is wrong to take control of the text and not let any room for objections and corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvarohurtadog ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Here in Colombia the only people that think the FARC are marxist and/or leninist and/or socialist are FARC members themselves, So I sugest that the article is changed so it says they are a self proclaimed Marxist/Leninist/Socialist group. Sincerely, A concerned Colombian citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.240.85.6 ( talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Who can help us ban this Fenian user. He's the only one not letting the article to be reviewed reflecting a more objective outline!!! We should get help from an administrator or something... I dont know how we can do it.-- 86.181.43.156 ( talk) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Avaya1:
Formatting a quotation as a quotation is not the same as POV pushing. As a self-appointed guardian of NPOV for all Wikipedia articles (per your user-page), it is incumbent upon YOU to provide a right-wing counter-argument justifying the repression of farmers. I say this, because you earlier deleted, and so censored, a sourced FACT of which you disapprove, by pretending to delete a quotation box, when, in fact, you deleted the quotation required to establish the historical context of this Colombian civil war . . . by means of which you are pushing a rightist POV.
Your POV-pushing is further proved by (i) your addressing the wrong editor (that is, I, MHazard9) rather than the true author of the edit, (ii) by your speaking in the plural (“We”, the self-righteous), and (iii) by expecting the other editor(s) to do your work . . . which unilateral editorial actions . . . uhhmm . . . constitute pushing the POV of Avaya1. That is to say, you make and enforce the rules for other Wikipedia Editors to heed, abide, and follow, lest you delete their CITED work . . . without first discussing YOUR unsourced disagreement with the editor in question. Gosh, are you for real, dude?
Please, practice what you preach to others, do not unilaterally censor in the name of self-defined sagacity concerning universal NPOV. Contribute, be constructive, and, by all means, QUERY and QUESTION, but do not suppress by reflex; it is unsporting, really. Because, in the end, the facts will out. Again, a quotation formatted as a quotation is just a quotation, not an endorsement.
Regards,
Mhazard9 ( talk) 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know exactly how strong the FARC-EP Guerillas really are? Some of my sources say there could be up to 40.000 combatants of the FARC and/or members of paramilitary groups associated with the FARC-EP (maybe also little rural groups that are collaborating with the Fronts or Blocs of the FARC-EP). But this article says in the FARC-EP there are only 18.000 combatants. In fact many internet and book sources say that there are many more combatants in Colombia and Venezuela, not only 18.000. Many FARC-EP units are well armed and James J. Brittain states in his book Revolucionary Social Change in Colombia: the Origin and Direction of the FARC-EP that the FARC-EP together with some units of Sendero Luminoso are the only two Guerilla movements that are not fighting for self-preservation. He states that the FARC-attacks has increased in 2010, 2011 and 2012, maybe, he says, because their military strenght has enormously rised. If anyone has other comparable sources to these Informations (real strenght of FARC-EP, realiable numbers and informations about the weaponry of FARC-EP) he should answer and so we could compare the real dates from different sources. Many thanks, -- Nicholas Urquhart ( talk) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I read about that place/name in an old magazine from 2000. Oddly, there's not a single mention of it on all of Wikipedia, though it has over 3000 Google hits. Shouldn't it be mentioned by name somewhere? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
How can a source from 1999 (a book by Anne Carrigan) state that FARC controled 40% of territory from 1999 to 2008? -- Forich ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article states that FARC's largest concentrations are "located throughout the southeastern parts of Colombia's 500,000 square kilometers (190,000 sq mi) of jungle and in the plains at the base of the Andean mountains". This description can be narrowed down a lot, without a doubt. We can at least name the colombian departments where FARC has the greatest area of control. It is just unconvenient to have readers wonder exactly what part of 'southeastern colombia' has guerrilla concentrations. What do you think?-- Forich ( talk) 05:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Please notice that the main picture has outdated data (from 2005). Almost eight years have passed and a lot has changed.-- Forich ( talk) 05:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
>> FARC may have the answer to Colombia's drug woes( Lihaas ( talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)).
Next to some names is a † symbolizing someone's been killed in action
Next to other names is a different cross/dagger symbol. What's the difference in the way they were killed
Montalban ( talk) 04:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys. These dudes have been controlling large swaths of land for some time back and forth. But very little is written about how they control it, what the people in these areas feel about it and so on. I have been trying to add a little bit but I would appreciate some help. Thanks 105.155.29.183 ( talk) 11:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Describing it as "a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerrilla organization based in Colombia" in the first sentence and paragraph is POV. It is officially considered a terrorist organization in Colombia. Either it should be described as a terrorist organization in the first sentence, or "Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerrilla organization" needs to be identified as a self-description. The current wording of the lead suggests that their self-description is more valid than the official view of the government in the country as well as most other reliable sources, including the EU and the US government. It also implies a legal and moral equivalency between a banned terrorist and drug trafficking organization and the Colombian government, which is POV. Urban XII ( talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
FARC- TERRORISTS, DESTRUCTORS
thousands of kids have lost their legs for land mines farc putted on the land, they have kidnapped so many people poor people, old man, kids, they dont care, they have destroyed whole poblations, they reclut kids of 12 years old, and they put bombs all over the country, drug trafficking, and the poor people, are the ones who have suffered much
they are the worsest thing that has ever happened to Colombia, and saying these delinquents are working for the poor, is like saying Obama Bin Laden is working for the child, and that by no means he is a bad man!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.224.130 ( talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Urban XII, this Fenian person is completely biased and the article shouldn't start stating that they are a marxist-leninist guerrilla. That label should be tagged as self-imposed or a self description. Fenian: "Marxist-Leninist - fact, revolutionary - fact, guerrilla - fact"?????? this is completely unacceptable and a shame to communist, revolutionary and marxist-leninist communities. Also all the country was celebrating the death of Mono Jojoy, whoever states otherwise is COMPLETELY biased or has never been to Colombia or simply is a supporter of the terrorist group who wants to change the perception of the world through Wikipedia. We cannot let such a supporter of this terrorist group to change the page as he wills. What can we do about banning this person????????????? The official sources should be used, such as the United Nations, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT of Colombia, the European Union, etc. LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! -- 86.181.43.156 ( talk) 01:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The gross on which a went on that website for a research... The only thing I want to hear on those cowards is that they are finally busted. Goverment duty? Listen? Why does have the goverment to do anything with a bunch of cowards sturming the country, it citizens and destroying it's reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.34.3 ( talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all the government of Colombia has not even made public all of it's alleged evidence linking Chavez and Correa to the rebels, secondly the United States has even admitted that there is no real evidence linking the FARC to the government of Venezuela, thirdly most Latin American nations did not side with Colombia in it's 2008 dispute with Venezuela and Ecuador. Those two nations should be removed!
The Government of Iran has and does support terrorist groups this is true. Most notably Hamas and Hezbollah, possibly even the Mahdi Army in Iraq. But the FARC? I have never even heard the slightest shred of evidence linking the two. If the author could provide some concrete evidence that would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 ( talk) 02:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that this page cannot escape from edit warring. As per WP:TERRORIST, we do not use the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" except when stating that certain states, organizations, or belligerents view X group as a terrorist organization. FARC is not an exception. Fischia Il Vento ( talk) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a picture in this article of the attack to Fernando Londoño, but there is no more than suspicion that this attack was planned by FARC. I'm seeing a pattern, as if someone wants to increase the prominence of that attack. See, for instance, Crime in Colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.4 ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
This could add Venezuela to the EU and US list of Sponsors of terror. Chavez has responded by denouncing FARC. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/world/americas/08venez.html?_r=1&ref=americas&oref=slogin I do not know where to add this what the correct place how should it be incorporated and should it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.181.23 ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Possibility of prisoner exchange with the government" it says towards the end, speaking I believe of the year 2004: "On December 2, the government announced the pardon of 23 FARC prisoners, to encourage a reciprocal move. The FARC ignored the gesture, and the 23 rebels released were all of low rank and had promised not to rejoin the armed struggle. The government is hoping to win the release of dozens of hostages, including three US citizens."
Are these the three that were released on 2 July 2008? If so it should be updated or the phrase "including three US citizens" should be dropped.
- Beardc ( talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please never forget:
Tacueyó Nov/85 - Jan/86, 164 deaths. http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/MAM-296278
Machuca October 17 / 1998 , 100 deaths. http://www.elpais.com.co/paisonline/notas/Marzo072007/eln_conden.html
Bojayá May 2 / 2002 , 119 deaths. http://www.viernesgigante.com/Especiales/Bojaya/Bojaya_1.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.30.112.210 ( talk) 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
this article presently stands at 127k. that's a bit hefty... i think someone some of these sections need to be broken out into their own articles a bit more aggressively. pauli133 ( talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
and:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1030
Jan Erik Proletaire ( talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
i have changed this as it siad that sinn fein was the political wing of the ira. this is untrue and a gross generalistation. back in the sevendys it was for the PIRA but the date was 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.123.75 ( talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Would like to bring to the attention of everyone that parts of the article and the name of FARC in both Spanish and English have been modified inserting the word "coward" and making direct references of the FARC as a 'Chavistas' organisation. I demand the the restoration of the original terms and names of the FARC deleting any reference of the FARC as cowardly and the elimination of all references of the FARC as a 'Chavistas' organisation for the sake of neutrality of the article. XRobertox ( talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
1. Added information from BBC news which states that the anti-FARC rallies were in the thousands http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7516533.stm , VOA news states tens of thousands http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2008-02-04-voa35-66627822.html, and Al Jazeera states hundreds of thousands http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/07/20087201614073667.html
2. Financing section needs citations or it should be removed.
3. Drug trafficking allegations need citations.
XXVII ( talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
In response to the above.
That's a mere caption and for a different July 20 rally. You seem to have mixed up the two. The BBC itself acknowledges hundreds of thousands in its actual article but even cites an estimate of over a million for just Bogotá alone on February 4th.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7225824.stm
Other sources do speak of millions and/or reiterate the above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020403019.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22998957/
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/colombians.take.to.streets.in.huge.antifarc.march/16661.htm
Juancarlos2004 ( talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The Activities section is full of sentences without citations, why is still on? And what about that little kid picture, is it there to shock the viewers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.17.57 ( talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, I stopped by yesterday to make a tiny change to the Criticism section since it consisted of a single subsection about the rallies. The article has radically shifted since then. My compliments to User:Jrtayloriv for turning unsourced anti-FARC bits into a sourced FARC apologetics piece (cf. drug trafficking version 1 and version 2). Perhaps someone can make a version between the two that actually adheres to NPOV? ;-) Recognizance ( talk) 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the third paragraph:
Suggesting instead:
Noting that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia
and also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia
I would suggest that FARC should be linked to La Violencia and/or the Liberal party. Was not Manuel Marulanda a member of the Liberal Party before he got disillusioned and left to start his movement, a movement of peasants, landless peasants? Was it not demand for land reforms who started civil war even before La Violencia? Ie some details about FARCs origin. Who were they and why? The ongoing struggle for land to the poor peasants etc. The interest of the landowners to fight back... Jan Erik Proletaire ( talk) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
did not the FARC form long after La Violence ended, wish I could find the name of the event in which the government attacked settlements set up with in Colombia and declared themselves self governed, it was this even that lead to the forming of the FARC if I have my history right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.200.20 ( talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
At 96kb, the article is on the long side. A lot of this is due to excessive detail in the history section; it needs to be summarised much more briefly, with more of the details left for the History of FARC article. This will not be easy to do, but it will be much kinder to the reader. Rd232 talk 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I think we should standardize in all articles and call them either FARC or FARC-EP. What do you think? -- Phil5329 ( talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, We should never use th "EP". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.245.187 ( talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is largely a Wikipedia-age-old problem of using official or common names. It would seem the trend, according to this article, is to use the FARC-EP. My guess is someone wanted to emphasize they are a de jure people's army and fight for the people. Like almost every country in the modern world... Int21h ( talk) 19:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been studying the FARC for almost a decade, and just returned from a research trip to Colombia. I've also been an advisor in Colombia for a year living with and training the Colombian Army. The entries on this page are so biased they make the page almost unpalatable and inappropriate given the scholarly framework of Wikipedia. Expect changes from me. Maestrodesalto ( talk) 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Whether in the original content or in edits, somebody is injecting a lot of bias into descriptions of FARC - clearly someone politically opposed to the group. Judgmental adjectives, unverified generalized claims, etc. For example they said the whole country celebrated when the government killed Mono Jojoy. That's clearly unverifiable and comes from a POV. I've removed a few such items so far, but have hit a language barrier on another one. The following quote references an article that does not contain the quote:
However the linked article contains an embedded news video in which President Santos speaks in Spanish about the operation to kill Mono Jojoy. My Spanish isn't very good, so I can't verify whether he says the quote attributed to him here and don't know whether it was correctly translated if so. I tried to listen for the words "doce" and "catorce" (12 and 14) and don't think I heard them. Given the bias already removed from this section, it would be good if a Spanish speaker could verify whether Santos says in the video what the author of this section presents here. Kookoobirdz ( talk) 16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, the two corrections I have made so far, I marked as minor edits. This was in error. According to the definition, they are major edits. Kookoobirdz ( talk) 16:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The article comes across as unbalanced and pov. "FARC-EP is a peasant army" is the second lead, while its status as violent non-state actor and terrorist organization is discussed many paragraphs later, immediately (publicly!!!) denied by president Chavez. Perhaps someone can set the right balance - I'm not talking anything extreme, just using a fair tone - and then remove the warning. gidonb ( talk) 20:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv: I want to ask why you removed the tags? Do you think the article is neutral like this? It is wrong to take control of the text and not let any room for objections and corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvarohurtadog ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Here in Colombia the only people that think the FARC are marxist and/or leninist and/or socialist are FARC members themselves, So I sugest that the article is changed so it says they are a self proclaimed Marxist/Leninist/Socialist group. Sincerely, A concerned Colombian citizen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.240.85.6 ( talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Who can help us ban this Fenian user. He's the only one not letting the article to be reviewed reflecting a more objective outline!!! We should get help from an administrator or something... I dont know how we can do it.-- 86.181.43.156 ( talk) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Avaya1:
Formatting a quotation as a quotation is not the same as POV pushing. As a self-appointed guardian of NPOV for all Wikipedia articles (per your user-page), it is incumbent upon YOU to provide a right-wing counter-argument justifying the repression of farmers. I say this, because you earlier deleted, and so censored, a sourced FACT of which you disapprove, by pretending to delete a quotation box, when, in fact, you deleted the quotation required to establish the historical context of this Colombian civil war . . . by means of which you are pushing a rightist POV.
Your POV-pushing is further proved by (i) your addressing the wrong editor (that is, I, MHazard9) rather than the true author of the edit, (ii) by your speaking in the plural (“We”, the self-righteous), and (iii) by expecting the other editor(s) to do your work . . . which unilateral editorial actions . . . uhhmm . . . constitute pushing the POV of Avaya1. That is to say, you make and enforce the rules for other Wikipedia Editors to heed, abide, and follow, lest you delete their CITED work . . . without first discussing YOUR unsourced disagreement with the editor in question. Gosh, are you for real, dude?
Please, practice what you preach to others, do not unilaterally censor in the name of self-defined sagacity concerning universal NPOV. Contribute, be constructive, and, by all means, QUERY and QUESTION, but do not suppress by reflex; it is unsporting, really. Because, in the end, the facts will out. Again, a quotation formatted as a quotation is just a quotation, not an endorsement.
Regards,
Mhazard9 ( talk) 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know exactly how strong the FARC-EP Guerillas really are? Some of my sources say there could be up to 40.000 combatants of the FARC and/or members of paramilitary groups associated with the FARC-EP (maybe also little rural groups that are collaborating with the Fronts or Blocs of the FARC-EP). But this article says in the FARC-EP there are only 18.000 combatants. In fact many internet and book sources say that there are many more combatants in Colombia and Venezuela, not only 18.000. Many FARC-EP units are well armed and James J. Brittain states in his book Revolucionary Social Change in Colombia: the Origin and Direction of the FARC-EP that the FARC-EP together with some units of Sendero Luminoso are the only two Guerilla movements that are not fighting for self-preservation. He states that the FARC-attacks has increased in 2010, 2011 and 2012, maybe, he says, because their military strenght has enormously rised. If anyone has other comparable sources to these Informations (real strenght of FARC-EP, realiable numbers and informations about the weaponry of FARC-EP) he should answer and so we could compare the real dates from different sources. Many thanks, -- Nicholas Urquhart ( talk) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I read about that place/name in an old magazine from 2000. Oddly, there's not a single mention of it on all of Wikipedia, though it has over 3000 Google hits. Shouldn't it be mentioned by name somewhere? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
How can a source from 1999 (a book by Anne Carrigan) state that FARC controled 40% of territory from 1999 to 2008? -- Forich ( talk) 00:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The article states that FARC's largest concentrations are "located throughout the southeastern parts of Colombia's 500,000 square kilometers (190,000 sq mi) of jungle and in the plains at the base of the Andean mountains". This description can be narrowed down a lot, without a doubt. We can at least name the colombian departments where FARC has the greatest area of control. It is just unconvenient to have readers wonder exactly what part of 'southeastern colombia' has guerrilla concentrations. What do you think?-- Forich ( talk) 05:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Please notice that the main picture has outdated data (from 2005). Almost eight years have passed and a lot has changed.-- Forich ( talk) 05:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
>> FARC may have the answer to Colombia's drug woes( Lihaas ( talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)).
Next to some names is a † symbolizing someone's been killed in action
Next to other names is a different cross/dagger symbol. What's the difference in the way they were killed
Montalban ( talk) 04:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys. These dudes have been controlling large swaths of land for some time back and forth. But very little is written about how they control it, what the people in these areas feel about it and so on. I have been trying to add a little bit but I would appreciate some help. Thanks 105.155.29.183 ( talk) 11:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Describing it as "a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerrilla organization based in Colombia" in the first sentence and paragraph is POV. It is officially considered a terrorist organization in Colombia. Either it should be described as a terrorist organization in the first sentence, or "Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerrilla organization" needs to be identified as a self-description. The current wording of the lead suggests that their self-description is more valid than the official view of the government in the country as well as most other reliable sources, including the EU and the US government. It also implies a legal and moral equivalency between a banned terrorist and drug trafficking organization and the Colombian government, which is POV. Urban XII ( talk) 16:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
FARC- TERRORISTS, DESTRUCTORS
thousands of kids have lost their legs for land mines farc putted on the land, they have kidnapped so many people poor people, old man, kids, they dont care, they have destroyed whole poblations, they reclut kids of 12 years old, and they put bombs all over the country, drug trafficking, and the poor people, are the ones who have suffered much
they are the worsest thing that has ever happened to Colombia, and saying these delinquents are working for the poor, is like saying Obama Bin Laden is working for the child, and that by no means he is a bad man!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.224.130 ( talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Urban XII, this Fenian person is completely biased and the article shouldn't start stating that they are a marxist-leninist guerrilla. That label should be tagged as self-imposed or a self description. Fenian: "Marxist-Leninist - fact, revolutionary - fact, guerrilla - fact"?????? this is completely unacceptable and a shame to communist, revolutionary and marxist-leninist communities. Also all the country was celebrating the death of Mono Jojoy, whoever states otherwise is COMPLETELY biased or has never been to Colombia or simply is a supporter of the terrorist group who wants to change the perception of the world through Wikipedia. We cannot let such a supporter of this terrorist group to change the page as he wills. What can we do about banning this person????????????? The official sources should be used, such as the United Nations, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT of Colombia, the European Union, etc. LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!! -- 86.181.43.156 ( talk) 01:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The gross on which a went on that website for a research... The only thing I want to hear on those cowards is that they are finally busted. Goverment duty? Listen? Why does have the goverment to do anything with a bunch of cowards sturming the country, it citizens and destroying it's reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.30.34.3 ( talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
First of all the government of Colombia has not even made public all of it's alleged evidence linking Chavez and Correa to the rebels, secondly the United States has even admitted that there is no real evidence linking the FARC to the government of Venezuela, thirdly most Latin American nations did not side with Colombia in it's 2008 dispute with Venezuela and Ecuador. Those two nations should be removed!
The Government of Iran has and does support terrorist groups this is true. Most notably Hamas and Hezbollah, possibly even the Mahdi Army in Iraq. But the FARC? I have never even heard the slightest shred of evidence linking the two. If the author could provide some concrete evidence that would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 ( talk) 02:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame that this page cannot escape from edit warring. As per WP:TERRORIST, we do not use the terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" except when stating that certain states, organizations, or belligerents view X group as a terrorist organization. FARC is not an exception. Fischia Il Vento ( talk) 03:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a picture in this article of the attack to Fernando Londoño, but there is no more than suspicion that this attack was planned by FARC. I'm seeing a pattern, as if someone wants to increase the prominence of that attack. See, for instance, Crime in Colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.4 ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)