Talk:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Main argument for labeling FARC a terrorist organization

In the overview section it is stated that they are responsible for acts of terrorism, but no source for this is provided. However the source no. 65 at the bottom of the page is a good source for this argument. Can someone please link this source to the overview section as well, so that the claim can be made with a support from an independent source that justifies this definition? Ashrawi (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A section for films about FARC?

Just a thought. I just watched the film "Guerilla Girl" (2005) and it's about FARC. The director lives in a FARC training camp for months and films the development of a new recruit. It gives a good overview of what the FARC training looks like and so on.

Or as IMDB's plot summary puts it: "This film is about a young girl who enters FARC and her training to become a guerrilla soldier. It describes the transformation this young city-girl undertakes, when having to adapt to strict military training and primitive conditions of life." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463286/

And I'm sure if searched, more films could be found about FARC too. I think the article could use at least a list of those films in end of it. :) Androg 10:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on Farc

Farc has no future becouse it lacs ppl suport, instead of wining "hearts nad minds", they decided to kidnap and kill ordinary ppl and ofcourse that ppl dnt like them, sooner or later govermant will win this war...

I see you are highly informed on the subject... please read academic literature on the subject, you will see that their popular support is still massive, especially in the south of the country. Flo 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I've lived here for 90% of my life and only know one person who supports the FARC. And I have friends in every "estrato" from 0 to 6. Anyone who's ever been in a Colombian taxi with a talkative driver knows that they consider the FARC to be the root of all evil, I'll normaly argue that it's actualy corruption that's the main problem but the people have spoken. 201.228.106.214 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Last poll I saw put Marulanda's approval rating at 3%. Put you have a point; in some regions it probably approaches 10%, especially where the FARC is protecting cocaleros. --Descendall 02:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

An interesting subject, which we could debate endlessly, because the are no directly verifiable absolute numbers for such a vague thing as "popular support". Still, there are some indicators that, indirectly, give us a general idea of the situation. Even if we were to completely disregard polls, merely for the sake of this argument, we can see some concrete limits to that "massive" support.

For example, how large can it potentially be when less than ~5%-7% of the Colombian population lives in the extremely underpopulated south and southeast of the country (and when less than ~25%-30% of the Colombian population lives in rural areas as a whole, north or south).

Even if we automatically made every Colombian within that ~5% a FARC supporter (a completely artificial assumption, because, to name one factor, there are FARC supporters elsewhere, even if in much lower numbers), the resulting number is still not "massive" by any means.

However, I do acknowledge that FARC has a fair degree of popular support in those areas, especially within their historical zones of influence, and that those numbers can be proportionally high. Using Descendall's statement as a starting point, they could definitely have the support of, say, 10% to 25% of the population in Putumayo, to use a completely random estimate, and logically even higher %s could exist if you limit the universe to specific rural hamlets in the middle of nowhere. Truth be told, many of those people do have valid reasons (from their POV) to support FARC too, given historical neglect, abuses and so on, but most of the population doesn't share that view (doesn't mean that they'll "like" Uribe or the government either, which would be a hasty conclusion as well and not much better than stating that FARC have "massive" support).

That the FARC has many supporters there is undeniable, IMHO. And in raw numbers such support could look "massive" to outside observers, even if it pales when you compare it to the total population of the country (at least 41 million) and take all the other demographic indicators into account. Juancarlos2004 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, this isn't really the place to debate this, but it is a very interesting subject. Of course, you even run into the problem of what genuine "support" is. If "they pay me a few pesos more for my coca paste than the Autodefensas do" is "support," then they probably do have significant amount of support in some villages out in the hinterlands of Colombia. I would venture to guess, however, that there are very, very few people believe that the FARC is going to carry out a sucessful communist revolution and would acutally support such a revolution. In fact, I'd think that even the majory of FARC members don't actually believe that. Marulanda ain't exactly going to be sitting in the presidential palace any time soon, I can tell you that. --Descendall 07:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete, inconsistent and maybe POV article

I think this article is inconsistent and perhaps POV. For example: "It funds itself principally through extortion, kidnapping and their participation in the illegal drug trade." - a "fact claim" (but no source added) - and then "The FARC is believed to have ties to narcotics traffickers [..]" - an uncertainty - again with no neutral source. I have seen a quote by Andres Pastrana saying "for the moment no proof or evidence exists that the FARC is a drug cartel.", but I can't find any credible sources for this anymore. Has proof or evidence surfaced, since?

Their (FARC) "law" is, according to their hompage, Bill 002, Article 1: "Collect the TAX FOR PEACE from those persons or corporations whose wealth is greater than $1,000,000.00 US.".

This is what I have heard previously: they collect this tax even if the "wealthy person" is a legitimate business man or an illegal drug-lord, and that this is their connection to drugs. Article 2 and 3 gives a better picture of their reasoning behind kidnappings and extortions. But perhaps they are not following their own law? I don't know. But the article should.

The article should definitely mention this "law" of their. And if they are not complying with it.

Kricke 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have a point in that specific sources need to be cited and that the statements could and should be expanded. Though it's also important to note that Andres Pastrana made that claim at a time when information was lacking and when he was doing everything possible in order to treat the FARC respectfully, in the context of a peace process. When the peace process ended, he showed no such restraint. But still, that they have participated in the illegal drug trade has become increasingly evident in recent sources (I could name a few...the BBC, Author Steven Dudley's "Walking Ghosts", the International Crisis Group and others), even if the extent of their involvement and the reasoning behind it can be debated. Even the FARC don't deny it outright. The article should reflect that, of course.

Also, consider that not all of the FARC's kidnappings and extortions follow that law (it would be almost wonderful if they only kidnapped people with such wealth and absolutely nobody else). They have kidnapped and extorted people years to decades before its very existence. I wouldn't say that they are breaking that law per se, because that's only an additional set of criteria for kidnapping, not a "new policy". Juancarlos2004

the start of this article definitely does need sourcing, you just cannot say "It funds itself principally through extortion, kidnapping and their participation in the illegal drug trade." without any sourcing, as the first commentator said. Whatever "know" the fact is, it needs sourcing or it is just some more rumour added to the mill. The fact that most people agree doesn't make it true.

Flo 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC) 11 august 2006

I didn't question that per se either, so I've just added links to two of the sources I previously mentioned above. I could also add more if necessary. Juancarlos2004 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I forgot to add that several drug-related cases are already specifically mentioned in the "Activities" section. Juancarlos2004 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I know several people who've had relatives kidnapped by the FARC (comes with my dad being a missionary) so kidnapping is definitely a tactic they use, I don't have anything first hand about drugs but didn't the army raid several "drug farms" recently? 201.228.106.214 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I think a sub division for criticism should be added. I'm open to your opinion on this. -Don Quijote's Sancho 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

New Page For Chain of Command

While Wikipedia has pretty good, neutral articles on the general overview of FARC, it lacked a little on the people who actually compose it. I have begun a new page, FARC-EP Chain of Command, which will allow us to see how the group was formed and woks today. Any help appreciated.

New Page

I have added a new page with specific information on the FARC-EP Eastern Block. Now added FARC-EP Western Block and FARC-EP South Block and FARC-EP Central Block.

Opening comments

Really, it can be argued that the FARC began as a social movement in its very early beginnings, and i can be also argued that they represent some social sectors to a certain degree (as does every single violent organization in the world , for that matter), but to pretend that it is still merely a social movement in this day and age, which is what a lone social movement classification suggests...is rather curious.

Their clear status as guerrillas, insurgents and, as viewed by the USA, the UN, the OAS and the EU, an organization of significant terrorist character, makes such a lone label misleading.

The EZLN, for example, is a totally different movement that can be considered a thousand times more social, given their different methods, scale of action, representation, goals and international recognition.

But the FARC, if they would belong to any category, using neutral terms, it would be to that of insurgents or rebel groups, terms which the FARC THEMSELVES have used to describe their own organization (especially the word insurgent).

The category of social movement might be acceptable if it was accompanied by several other qualifiers/describers (or simply other categories).

---

Here we go again with the "Terrorist Group Profiles, Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School". This might be a worthwhile source but lifting everything from it is not NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer

---

"Human rights are not subject to negotiation. They must be respected by all. It is time for the left-wing rebel groups -- and the right-wing paramilitary forces -- to end their blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. It is time for the people of Colombia to take back their country from these terrorists." --This is pure advocacy and doesn't have any place in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer

Good job pointing this out, Daniel. I'm going to remove the advocacy. 172

---

I agree that the original article was quite POV. I think I did a pretty good job cleaning it up and I added some original content based on other sources. Please point to specific problems and I'm quite open to revisions. Just deleting the entire text is non-productive especially since my text is nowhere near the text before your original deletion. Daniel Quinlan 09:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I should also note that prior to my changes, the article contained factual inaccuracies. The peace talks are basically dead since the February 2002 (when the presidential candidate was kidnapped, she's still missing as far as I know). Daniel Quinlan 09:26 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think your latest version was a good start. The only thing that is missing is a bit of historical perspective, ie, why the FARC arose, etc. Perhaps it can be added in due time. -- Viajero 14:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I think after recent edits by Viajero, myself, and others that we can remove the NPOV banner now. Okay? Daniel Quinlan 22:46, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think it's the most balanced article I've seen on them yet. I say ditch the POV warning notice. -- Jake 07:29, 2003 Aug 19 (UTC)

This may be quite some question but,

How do you join?????

sweet mother of jesus christ who the hell thinks about that? joining the farc isnt is like joining scouts, in fact, nobody joins the farc. their infantery is composed (mainly) by farm workers and people from small towns who are recluted at gun, or to save the life of their family.

- Dane Genarro Curley

None, or very few of the fighters in the FARC have joined wishingly. Most are recruited by force from thir house/farm when they reach 15-16 years of age. Yet others join simply because of the need to have a job, and FARC pays their fighters above minimum wage, provides meals, and "security" for their family in case they are killed or captured. Of course, there must be exceptions.

I doubt that anyone here is with the ejército del pueblo. Pehraps FARC will have info in their website at http://www.farcep.org/ 172 05:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Joining the FARC is not like joining a Book Club or even joining the EZLN...be careful what you wish for.

Wish for what you like.

Personally, I would only consider supporting FARC if:

They shed their "terrorist" label by instituting a few rules, such as 1) No civilian casulties 2) Engagement in parlaimentary politics as well as guerrilla 3) No taking of ANY hostages 4) Adherence to the Geneva Conventions at ALL TIMES 5) Not getting involved in drugs at all.

If they are indeed a Marxist group, fighting for peace and democracy, I hope they can clean up their act but still remain strong and defiant against the disgusting Colombian government.

Do they really think Marx and Guevara would support a movement, be it Communist or not, that was killing innocent civilians and dealing with drugs? They need to clean up their act!!!!

I added a link in the article related to this, about forced recruiting of children in their lines, can someone help introduce it properly into the article? --F3rn4nd0 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

An interesting article that appeared in El Tiempo recently stated the following. Really makes you want to join:

- "Pero al cabo de un tiempo quedó embarazada. Curtida en la vida guerrillera, sabía lo que eso significaba: un consejo de guerra que podía culminar en su ejecución o en un aborto forzoso con probablemente las mismas consecuencias."

- Loose translation: "After some time, she was pregnant. Involved in guerilla life, she knew what that meant: a war council that could determine her execution or a forced abortion with a similar outcome."

Colombiano21 02:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you people have gotten your information regarding how "none, or very few join the FARC willingly" I'm aware of their recruitmet of children but have never heard of these claims. A year ago i remember an entire bloc of Farc guerrilla's surrendered, 70 in all, I dont recall them saying anything about forced recruitment. Another matter is that of the Seventh Guerrilla Conference in 1982 which was a radical re-working of the FARC structure, and the 96-98 offensive, I doubt that any of this would have been worth the effort to the FARC leadership if no one, or very few of their rebels cared for it.

The FARC doen't pay their fighters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.216.229 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A maid of my family had her son forcably recruited, I've heard of children being recruited but have nothing first hand regarding that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.228.106.214 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Compliments on a Well Done Article; More Details

I lived in Colombia (Bogota) for several years, and your article captures, in an acceptably NPOV way, the FARC. I suspect there are things going on with the FARC that have not yet been broadly accepted as fact, but will be in the fullness of time, e.g. very tight links of FARC leaders to narcotics trafficking, especially following the power vacuum caused by the collapse of the monolithic Cali and Medellin cartels in the 1990's. Many people with experience in Colombia take these as accepted facts, but it is one thing for people there to know something experientially, and another to have a body of evidence to make it accepted more broadly. The article covers it pretty well. You might expand the history of the FARC to include the 19th century fights between the Liberal and Conservative parties: the FARC came out of a splinter of the Liberals. This conflict, known as "la violencia" (the violence), is the origin of the deep division in Colombia. Even the roughly equal-in-size police and army supported opposing sides of this conflict. Animosity and distrust between them continues to this day.

I think it would be useful for you to put something in your timeline about the bombing of the El Nogal club (Avenida 7a, Bogota) in 2003 (I think). It was an important event because it was a major bombing in Bogota, and the most directed attack at the wealthy Colombians. It might have signaled a more intense urban phase of the war. Time has not borne that thesis out, though it might mean it was a *failed* attempt to start a more intense urban phase of the war. Either POV would be important to evaluating the situation.

Also: you mention Fernando Beira Mar (AKA Fernandinho), but do not mention a FARC counterpart with whom he worked very closely: El Negro Acacio, a high-level FARC leader (head of the 16th Front) in eastern Colombia, on the border with Brazil. The presumption is that Negro Acacio, an Afro-Colmbian from Colombia's Valle Department, directs little fighting in his area, is actually more responsible for maintaining the logistic pipeline to FARC units nationwide. There is ample evidence that the Brazil and Venezuela borders (Cucuta, especially) are used as the principal transit and trans-shipment points for FARC (less so the Peruvian and Ecuadorian bordrers). Negro A. manages drugs being produced and shipped out of Colombia to Brazil (and onward), and the Brazilians are happy to provide money and weapons in return. Negro Acacio has been indicted in the U.S. for narcotics trafficking, with what I understand is ample evidence.

Based on a significant experience there, my own personal "unified theory" about Colombia is that the conflict has been corrupted. The theory goes, as regards only FARC, that FARC is not by design and original intention a narcotics trafficking organization, but they are "hooked" on money the trafficking gives them, and money they get from tactical alliance with the cocaine and (growing) heroin traders in Colombia. On the other side, the cocaine/heroin traders are not by design terrorists, but they use the FARC (and AUC) to keep up the chaos in the country that prevents effecitve police efforts to stop the drug trafficking. It is an eager marriage of convenience; both benefit, and the Colombian people suffer as a side effect. If my theory approaches the objective truth, it is a tragically sad situation: FARC leaders convince young followers they are fighting for a better society, when the truth is that the leaders are just enjoying big money and perks from their narcotics trafficking ties (blue label scotch, Rolex watches, stolen Luxury 4x4 vehicles, women). The typical grunt FARC guerrilla suffers in deprivation, and even if he (or she) sees the situation realistically (i.e., aspiring get a piece of of that big money FARC leaders enjoy), it only reduces their participation to a race for (in this case, illicit) wealth. No political component at all. This is pathetic, given what Colombia could achieve in peace, if it only would (there is still a stubborn "have and have not" problem in Colombia to consider). Very arguably, the FARC is not even really seeking political power anymore, since the current situation serves their economic needs just fine, and peace would jeopardize the cocaine/heroin/counterfeiting cash cow. Despite world political events since then (i.e. fall of USSR, Eastern European Communist regimes), the FARC cling to a minimally-modified 1964 model of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary dogma that has no reasonable possibility of success. I don't have many doubts about the situation, but I leave it to your good judgement.

The Colombian conflice is very complex, and there are others who benefit from continuation of the violence. Of course there are societal inequities and injustices in Colombia, which my note does not address. Also, none of the above intentionally minimizes or excuses the activities and ties of the paramilitaries (AUC); I just chose to focus on FARC for the purposes of this discussion.

The additions made by 66.189.89.87

First off, I'd say that they are on the whole some very interesting and much needed contributions to the article, especially as far as the historical background is concerned.

On the other hand, several direct quotes are made without pointing out the specific sources of the same...

Definition

"[FARC]...classified internationally as a terrorist group, is Colombia's oldest, largest, most capable and equipped militant guerrilla group..."

I wonder if it's acceptable to make this classification prior to the definition.

Maybe not, but to be frank I personally don't have strong views on that specific point, either way. In any case, if it's changed then logically it should also be modified in the AUC article and elsewhere, for internal and external consistency.

I loved it... we may hate them, but they sure are the biggest, baddest baddases!

Some vandal apparently took issue with it, focusing entirely on the intro. While reverting, I went ahead and cut out "most capable and equipped" -- concrete examples of FARC's capability etc. "look" less POV than superlatives (however accurate) at the head, and might not attract so many anonymous morons. Hope that's okay. Echeneida

Hahaha man oh man was I ever wrong! Echeneida

Relevance of Newly Added Pictures

I'm rather unsure as to the actual usefulness, neutrality and reasoning behind filling up the article with pictures of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, JFK, Karl Marx, Southcom and so on. In other words, with graphical representations of individuals, objects and situations that already have their own encyclopedia entries and are only marginally related to the main subject of the article, which is the FARC and its role in the Colombian conflict. This is supposed to be an article ostensibly fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, and such articles (here and elsewhere) usually do not need the presence of so many indirectly related images. At the very least, this makes the article look more disorganized than it already is. As an example of this kind of logic, this is like filling up an article on Hugo Chavez or his MVR political party with images of Simón Bolivar, Rafael Caldera, George W. Bush, oil wells and so on. This could even be termed image spamming. Including one or two of these images might make sense, but not so many of them. Juancarlos2004 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I see that you've cut most of them. I think that it's even a little silly to include Che in the article. Besides being leftist Latin American guerrillas, I really don't see the connection. FARC is less Cuban and Foco inspired than the ELN. The picture of Uribe strikes me as odd, also. FARC has fought for what, 42 years or something? They've fought against a whole lot of Colombian administrations, not just that of Uribe. I think that the article would look a lot better if instead we had some pictures of the FARC leadership (certainly Marulanda) as well as actual guerrillas. There seem to be a whole lot of pictures of the guerrillas marching in columns, raising the FARC flag, and other activities on the internet. I'm sure that we could find at least a few ones that are usable on wikipedia. The FARC itself puts out a lot of pictures for propaganda purposes. I don't know what the copyright status on those things are -- FARC is an illegal group in Colombia and the United States, so I doubt that they could go to court to claim a copyright violation. Plus, even if FARC could claim a copyright, the pictures are used for propagana, so you might be able to give it the {Promotional}} tag. --Descendall 21:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on Military Structure of the FARC-EP, Jacobo Arenas. and Military History of the FARC-EP, all of which have useless images in my opinion. --Descendall 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Designated Terrorist Org

I've created a new cat Category:Designated terrorist organizations as a subcat of Category:Terrorist organizations. The aim of this is to provide a more factual and NPOV description of orgs. DTOs have been specified on one or more lists - in this case both the US and EU. AndrewRT 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done. We shouldn't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Its not against NPOV to call a group deliberately targetting civilians as terrorists when its a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.186.161 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

question of funding

Have you noticed there isn't anything actually serious about the funding of that organization? because as far as politics goes there is a huge talking point on that issue, this should be tackled here more specifically, and try not to have POV issues...

Flo 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Explicitly addressed in the article's current text, you mean. In that respect, the article does need a lot of work, not only in that subject. But links already in the article (and in this talk page) do contain more specific and, to quote you, "serious" information. Not only mere political statements. Try to check a few of those and these (just those from a quick googling):

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_200501/ai_n13602077

http://uniset.ca/terr/art/colombiakidnapping.pdf

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Colombia_releases_detailed_report_about_the_FARC

http://www.peacenews.info/media/tools/download.php?id=24

I can also dig up more online and offline sources for that. I can't look those up and type them all right now, 'cause I'm not at home right now, but I can get around to it.

Of course, most available sources are ultimately based on estimates or extrapolations, because the full state of the FARC's real finances are secret, as are those of most clandestine organizations. It would be rather stupid for a clandestine organization to provide free, accurate and complete information about its own funding, other than boasts, vague statements and so on. Politics cuts both ways, you know, not only "against" these organizations but also "in their favor". Juancarlos2004 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see u had answered earlier, too bad for me... I'll get to these addresses right now. And indeed as far as I found things politics do cut both ways, a shame that it is not a set science, or maybe what makes its interests. thanks for ur good work juan

Flo 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for pictures

I kind of like the "Wikipedians in Colombia may be able to help!" tag. Yeah, right: if you're in Colombia, just saunter on over to your local FARC base and take some pictures, I'm sure no one will mind. --Descendall 18:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

your local farc base? jumping beans what kind of image do you have about colombia

Check out this awesome article: sarcasm. --Descendall 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

--maybe a colombian journalist has some and can provide them!! huh? common sense? --F3rn4nd0 14:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When is a flag not a flag?

I see that Image:Farcflag.PNG has been moved down the page and been changed to an "identification symbol" rather than a flag. I think that the most identifying symbol of the FARC is not their flag, but their armbands. Apart from that, their sheild[1] is more of an "identifying symbol" in my mind than their flag. I think this should be changed to "flag" and should probably be moved back up on top of the page. Also note that the current picture on top of the page, which is licenced PD-self, is a fairly obvious copyvio, and I've tagged it as such. --Descendall 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the flag being a flag, though the fact that the shield is, basically, a small version of the flag gives some room for interpretation as far as which is more of an "identifying symbol". It seems you're right on the copyvio bit... Juancarlos2004 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

yep I agree. --F3rn4nd0 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite.php

I'm using Cite.php to cite some of the sources given in the article. This article is basically a poster boy for Cite.php: it has a million inline links, a great number of which are dead, to webpages that don't have static URLs. It will take me a few days to finish this up. --Descendall 04:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My work here is done. --Descendall 04:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos of the FARC

The photos of the FARC on this page are listed as works of the United States Department of Justice. While it may be true that these photographs were used by the United States Department of Justice, it's pretty hard to imagine that they were originated by the Department of Justice. The FARC would have certainly killed any Department of Justice official who wandered into one of their camps and started to take pictures. Consequentially, I think the copyright status on these pictures is incorrect. --Descendall 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the picture of Che Guevara in the article is from his visit to Congo. The text claims that it is a picture of Che teaching the FARC some guerrilla tactics, something that, as far as I know, never happened. The picture has been published on several Che's biographies. Agudav 14:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Che Guevara picture should be removed and the statement should be changed...

You can't add a picture of Che Guevara in Congo and say that he influenced the FARC. Is totally out of context and not diplomatic and non-objetive!!! Clearly non objetive.

Also, there is no evidence that Che Guevara influenced the FARC directly. The FARC may take Che Guevara as a symbol, but that doesn't mean that they were influenced and teached by Che Guevara. There is no evidence that he had ever visited the FARC. If anyone has any evidence, please add a quote to the article and from a trusted source. And that picture is not about Che Guevara teaching the FARC!! It's about Che Guevara in Congo!

There is no link between Che Guevara and FARC. And as someone who has read and studied Guevara, I can say that if he lived today, he would never support a cocaine producer movement like FARC. But of course this is just my opinion and I would never add this statement to an article. So, I ask the same to the other corner, to not add your political views to this article and keep objectivity. The objective point of the article is clearly disrupted with that addition.

Just noticed that other users are thinking the same as me, by reading some posts above. So, the fact is that we have one user with certain political views (who added the picture and that statement about Che Guevara) and many other users who are trying to keep the objectivity of the article, which means that the picture should be removed and the statement changed. Ale2007 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Text regarding farc activities.

I removed a chunk of text indicating the FARC were involved in wholesale massacres of villages and forced recruitment. This entire article is loaded with text that in my opinion represents a biased, anti-communist view of the FARC. While there is little doubt the FARC are involved in some human rights violations, I have never seen anything that suggests these "massacres" are anything more than propaganda. If someone wishes to place the text back in, I would simply request that they actually source their reference; and I hope they would use clearly non-aligned sources. This article is in need of some serious editing far above and beyond this one example. Also, I don't have the source for this any longer, but I have several times come across material (unbiased) insisting that while the FARC do nothing to combat the growth of cocaine, they merely tax the farmers who choose to grow it, not explicitly traffic the drugs themselves. If that can be cited by someone then I would say a section needs to be devoted to explaining at least the differing views in this matter.--Indiefilm45 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to refrain from accurately describing murderers, terrorists, kidnappers, bandits and thieves as what they are. There is no other reasonable point of view. Communism and murder, terrorism, kidnapping, robbery, etc. in support of it represent a tiny fringe majority view and need not given equal time or credence in an article. All credible sources list FARC as terrorists, drug runners, kidnappers, and parasitic thieves. In fact it is the absurd material which tries to paint these terrorists as "revolutionaries" (how can they have a revolution nobody else wants - that's called a rebellion or banditry). The volume of sources which indicate that FARC are criminals and terrorists far outweigh the absurd propaganda that tries to paint them in a sympathetic light. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I already tried to explain this to you on your talk page, it goes aganist policy not even Al-Qaeda is descrived flatout as a terrorist group in the lead, WP:NPOV clearly states that you shouldn't try to influence the reader's point of view by giving more weight to a certain option, some Colombians consider them terroris and some consider them heroes, which one is right is up to the reader's judgement. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The prevailing view is that these are terrorists, drug runners, and bandits. This is how they are covered in the mainstream press. We do not actually give "equal weight" to different points of view. In some cases it becomes absurd to overly represent the view of some people, for example murderers and terrorists. These views deserve a mention in the body of the article but not protrayal as a fact or widely held opinion. Communism is an extreme fringe view and its bizarre claims justifying its murders are just not equally credible to their classification by the press and international governments as terrorists. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That my friend is POV based on someone else's POV, don't edit based on that or some users will cry bias, the lead does mention the terrorist accusations but it doesn't present them as terrorist sraight that is fair representation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then I don't underestand wikipedia policies or they are not consistent. My experience is that what you are saying is not the case and that a situation like this should be treated with the prevailing value judgment. The tiny fringe view in support of murder, terrorism, drug running, kidnapping and robbery does not deserve equal balance with the overwhelming majority view that these acts are criminal. The fact that these terrorists support a tiny fringe extremist political view only makes it more certain that they should be treated as nothing other than extremists and their views given as much importance as the opinions of a serial killer, rapist or war criminal. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems you have misunderstood policy since it clearly states no POV not even a very small ammount of it. Criminals, rapists and ect. are treated equally just take a quick browse at Chris Benoit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. No idea who Chris Benoit is, but the introduction of his article reads "Investigators affirmed that Benoit murdered his wife and son and later hanged himself." Murdered. Colombia says FARC commits murders. What's the difference? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead doesn't refere to him as a murder directly wich is the same case here where there are already mention of their illegal actions. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between a murderer and someone who commits murder? What's the difference between a kidnapper and someone who kidnaps? A parasite and someone who steals to live? A terrorist and someone who commits terrorism? There is no a difference; if the act is a fact so is the label. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably, the issue is the label isn't allowed by policy while the act is. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They deliberately target civilians, which makes them a terrorist group. If we can't print the truth for fear of offending terrorist sympathisers, then Wikipedia is simply a waste of bandwidth, and the whole site is probably worthy of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.186.161 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is also not correct. There are entire categories of people labeled "rapists". A great many killers are labeled as "murderers" in their article. Please describe what aspect of the NPOV policy says you cannot label someone a "murderer" who has committed murder as described by the relevant legal authorities? If that is the policy there are a ton of pages on wikipedia that need to be cleaned up. In fact given the resistance I've encountered to fixing that, I'd say it is definitely not the policy; the policy is more like "it depends who is squatting on the article, how much noise they make about the POV presented being correct or neutral, and what admins they can run to for help." -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been an user here a long time right? there are hundreds if not thousands of pages needing cleanup here, most of them containing material added by anon and new users, I do my part and keep up the 600+ pages on my watchlist clean and this particular one has been there since January, so if you are not satisfied by policy you can always open a WP:RFC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those pages are within policy from what I can tell. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Furdee, please stop it and understand that here seems to be consensus not too generalize the FARC with terms like parasites. The image shows a group of armed soldiers or combatants, not more and not less. Don't push your POV. Even if the FARC could be called parasitic there is still no need to label the people on the photo parasitic. Consider that they might be forced to join the FARC. -- Stan _talk 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I cited a military analyst who is familiar with this group. What better expert could there be? I don't understand what rule or standard is being applied to term these criminals, terrorists and bandits as "soldiers" just because they are wearing military-looking uniforms. I don't see what relevance the status of these "soldiers" as volunteers or "conscripts" would be; the best military analyst thinks they are parasites. "Soldier" is a euphemistic term for these people who are at best organized criminals. Why should the international effort to eradicate parasites like this be undermined with communist-sympathizing propaganda that euphemizes murder? That's not factual and it's not NPOV. The "NPOV" is that these are terrorists while, as a footnote, some extremist fringe sympathizers of this sort of murder would call these "soldiers" or even "revolutionaries". -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If something can be a bigger WP:NPOV violation than directly refering to someone as a 'parasite' within the body of a article please let me know of it and I will delete it, though "militants" its probably a better way to refer to them than "soldiers". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok sounds reasonable. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 04:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlawful combatant or Combatant would probably be more precise for the pictures. The term Militant is not exclusive for physical warfare but better then parasite (: -- Stan _talk 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Or guerrilla. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ok with me-- Stan _talk 05:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: Rather than trying to argue what FARC are or are not (all of us probably have our own personal opinions about that. I disagree with Indiefilm45's opinions about the group, yet I agree with his removing that block of far too biased and unsourced text, as well as with the need for much more editing), why not point to specific accusations and accusers regarding concrete events?

Even if some of the accusations may or may not be propaganda (many events are unclear on both sides), that several accusations exist is a fact and including them, properly sourced and presented (including FARC's responses, if any), wouldn't be much of a problem and could actually improve the article. Also, there's no need to call FARC a "parasite", that's way too biased and POV for an encyclopedia article. Guerrillas or militants are much better terms, regardless of whatever one thinks of FARC. Juancarlos2004 14:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously it seems the first poster does not live in colombia, neither has investigated enough about the matter, if u at least investigated a little you would know Farc has done tons of massacres in colombia, there are lots of towns. And you sure have no clue on how the drug industry works for them, for example, if they need land to grow more coca , they will just go to a farm and make the owner sell it at a very low price and work for them, otherwise the owner would get killed, so no, is not merely taxing people who CHOOSE to grow it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.242.81 (talk) 23:28, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Review

Well I made some changes to the structure of the article, and...

• I strongly think that the introduction is basically contradicting with the "overview" section, these should be merged and summarized intro 3 or four paragraphs.
• The same for some other sections that could be summarized or moved to a separate article.
• There is information that is constantly repeated such as in the case of the Irish bomb makers.. man! the article was way out of focus.
• We should follow WP:DEV, WP:MOS and WP:NPOV.

--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Displacement of people

Wiki says: “The farc...is responsible for many of the civilians displaced by the conflict”. This is unsourced and in complete contradiction with the following:

- e-source: [2], “...the collective land which they were forced to leave as a result of a major military campaign launched by the Colombian army and paramilitary forces against left-wing guerrillas in 1996.”

- Here [3] we read: “while defending the interests of the state and the companies operating in these districts, the paramilitaries have committed the majority of the human rights violations reported in the past few years; they are notorious for extreme brutality, involving massacres, torture, kidnappings, extortion and massive displacements of civilians (CERAC, 3 November 2005). These violations have been committed mainly as part of an explicit strategy to separate the guerrillas from their perceived popular support base and gain control over land, natural resources and strategic roads. This largely explains the strong co-relation between internal displacement and the presence of multinational companies in Colombia. The regions richest in natural resources are also the ones most prone to internal displacement. According to data collected by one of the most prominent human rights organisations in Colombia, paramilitary groups were responsible for at least 12,398 extrajudicial executions, 1,339 acts of torture and 2,121 forced disappearances between 1988 and 2003. CINEP, 2004 They have also engaged in what has been referred to as “social cleansing”, namely the murder and intimidation of people they disapproved of, such as drug addicts, homosexuals, prostitutes, the homeless, beggars and alcoholics, as well as killing trade union leaders. CODHES, 28 April 2003; AI, 30 June 1997 In 2005, 70 union workers were assassinated, and 260 received death threats, mainly from paramilitary groups, according to a Colombian workers union. CUT, 31 March 2006; Cuellar, 2005 The paramilitaries’ strategy of separating the civilian population from the guerrillas has forced many small farmers and members of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities to abandon or sell their land and assets at low prices as a direct consequence of threats, massacres, killings and torture. The brutality has even included cutting up people alive with chainsaws (IPS, 28 March 2006).”

- Other e-source: [4], “Human rights advocates blame paramilitaries for massacres, "disappearances", and cases of torture and forced displacement. Rebel groups are behind assassinations, kidnapping and extortion.”

- also [5], report published today 5 Nov. 07) by the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) - “Resisting Displacement by Combatants and Developers: Humanitarian Zones in North-west Colombia”: “the African palm industry is fuelling forced displacement and other human rights violations in the region. The Procurator General’s Office has expressed concern that palm companies have commissioned human rights violations from paramilitary groups, and the Ombudsman’s Office has concluded that the companies have “taken advantage of forced displacements. Yet the majority of reported human rights violations, including massacres and torture, leading to the forced displacement of civilians have not been investigated, and officially-demobilised paramilitary groups are still preventing IDPs from recovering their land. In September 2007, two IDP leaders were shot and seriously wounded in a reportedly “paramilitary-type” attack. private companies cultivating African palm for the production of biofuel started to establish plantations on the land soon after its inhabitants were displaced. The Colombian government has provided political and financial support to the development of African palm plantations as part of its effort to eradicate illicit crops, promote regional development, and, reportedly, to provide economic incentives for paramilitaries to give up their weapons in line with the government’s Justice and Peace programme.”

So a big show has been made on the military right-wing 's so-called “disarmement” ([6], 1 September 2005- “The Paramilitaries in Medellín: Demobilization or Legalization? - ... over 860 paramilitaries belonging to Medellín’s Cacique Nutibara Bloc (Bloque Cacique Nutibara, BCN), laid down their arms in a highly-staged ceremony in front of Colombian and foreign dignitaries...”) when in fact said military has kept ample enough means to support private companies taking-over the land left behind by the people displaced and prevent the latter from coming back to their land (see refs above for this and the following comment). Moreover, it is these private companies that have paid at least partly, if not heavily, that paramilitary's show of disarmement. All this points at some form of organized land racket with the benediction of at least the Colombian government, the U.S. one, and corporations (likely other governments too). Even if that conclusion is not agreed upon, it is nevertheless false and totally misleading to say that the FARC “is responsible for many of the civilians displaced by the conflict”. This is why it should be removed. Basicdesign 04:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Without entering into a potentially endless and nevertheless ultimately off-topic debate about the rest of the details mentioned above, other facts and different interpretations, etc. I also believe that the original phrase you've highlighted needs to be removed and replaced by a better -and obviously sourced- description of how FARC has also participated in or provoked internal displacement of civilians.

That reality, as a consequence, is not really a contradiction but can exist just fine, side by side with the other cases you've chosen to mention. For a quick example of FARC's role and responsibility for displacements, see here [7]. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"reality, as a consequence, is 'not really a contradiction' but can exist"... i honestly don't know about the 'just fine', nor about it being 'not really a contradiction' - I bet it *** well looks like one on major scale to whoever's got to drop it all behind including having seen too much death; but 'this is not really a contradiction' so yes to what you mean, that was the idea to start with. And yes i'd seen that site - precisely. See more further down at "children enrolled", ta.Basicdesign (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

terrorists or guerilla

Wiki says: “Despite their terrorist label, the FARC-EP still claims to be a guerrilla movement, and some analysts argue that the group's ideology has remained consistent”. This is biased, principally because of the “despite” and “still”. It is more objective to say:

“The FARC-EP claims to be a guerrilla movement, and some analysts argue that the group's ideology has remained consistent. It has been labelled as a terrorist organisation by some countries.” Basicdesign 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FARC can claim what they want, but actions speak louder than words. If they act like terrorists, then they deserve to be labelled terrorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.186.161 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To be a terrorist, it must be your plan to kill civilians, from what I have heard, it seems like FARC kills most civilians in the process of attacking targets, while figures like Orlando Bosch and Osama Bin Laden have the civilian population as their main target, and only fight the military if it gets in their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Children enrolled

Wiki says: “approximately 20 to 30% of them (FARC soldiers) are forcibly-recruited children...”

- The very report cited as source for this (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/02/22/colomb10202.htm) says: “Many children join up for food or physical protection, to escape domestic violence, or because of promises of money. Some are coerced to join at gunpoint, or join out of fear. Others are street children with nowhere to go.” So this cannot be called “forcibly recruited children”: some are forcibly recruited by the FARC, but many aren't.

- Also, the Human Watch report also cited as source for the quote in wiki, says that “The introduction of children to the ranks of fighters is a relatively new development. In the 1950s, children may have accompanied families who escaped attacks and lived in rebel encampments. But they rarely fought themselves... This changed in the 1990s, as guerrillas and paramilitaries began recruiting drives. In 1996, the office of the Public Advocate (Defensoría del Pueblo) released one of the first reports chronicling this development...

So the “forcibly-recruited” should accordingly be removed from that sentence, and some idea of datation be introduced. Suggestion:

“approximately 20 to 30% of them are now children...”, or “beginning in the 1990's, they include approximately 20 to 30% of children...” Basicdesign 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed, but perhaps it should be changed to say "they are accused of forcibly recruiting children". Not that it matters I guess, the fact that they use children at all is despicable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.186.161 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Look for this video on youtube "TOMA POBLACION POR 6to FRENTE FARC" [8].. the FARC got into a village and began to collect children for recruitment. The girl crying is one of the mothers.. then the town mobilizes to prevent the guerrilla from taking the children and the policemen. You can also use a another link with that one if that is the case [9]--Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 06:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "some are forcibly recruited by the FARC, but many aren't". Suggesting otherwise seems be as biased as accusing the Farc of "being responsible for the displacement", an assertion which has not been corrected despite contrary facts-finding from several sources of good repute as Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (world-wide), Amnesty International and BBC. None of which makes it less horrendous for all. Even less so for the largest amount of displaced people per country in the world, who are prevented to come back to their land in the above described manner - not by the FARC. Who profits? Basicdesign (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the existence of cases of displacement in which FARC has participated, see above. As for the issue of children and forced recruitment, I think both elements should be mentioned. The dating you speak of is necessary, but you also quoted a paragraph which includes forced recruitment as one of ways in which children enter FARC, even if it's not the only way and the other possibilities exist. So it could indeed be said that some are forcibly recruited, while many others join for other reasons (hardly worth of any admiration anyways, but that's another matter). Juancarlos2004 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with "some are forcibly recruited, while many others join for other reasons", that's more representative of what I found.

"The dating you speak of is necessary" but was badly phrased split in two bits (reality is not really . Could say: "beginning in the 1990's, they now include approximately 20 to 30% of children...". Otherwise could think (and say) that they were evil enough to wake up one morning and say off-hand, "right now within a month we want 1 for every 3 soldiers to be a kid". Let's not forget that the other side did at least as bad and provably worse in damages. We heard more of (and demonized more, must admit) the farc all these years because kidnappings are (deliberately so, I should think) more attention-grabbing than spreading actual damage. Admiration wouldn't have crossed my mind, let alone its counterpart contempt. Pity looks a safer bet, and that doesn't even mean it's better. Basicdesign (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the forcedly recruited... some of the children grew up within the FARC as having parents members of the guerrilla, (that was the case of Martin Caballero) others went because of family problems, others to gain independence or recognition from others, and another cause is poverty, the guerrilla provides for them collectively to survive. But the majority are forcedly recruited as you can read in the link. The AUC demobilized, while it is unknown if the emerging paramilitary groups are recruiting. The other actor is the ELN which is not as big as the FARC. Try to find latest reports from UN related human rights organizations and balance these with government sites. --Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"But the majority are forcedly recruited as you can read in the link." What link is that pls? As said above, I went to the link provided in the article, and it says: "Many children join up ... Some are coerced...".

"Try to find latest reports from UN related human rights organizations": that's what I did, and cited as further examples of where the balance lays between "some" and "many". Talking of balance, i don't see why there is not one mention of children in the UAC artices nor talk page. Is it because they so adamantly deny it for themselves?

From what i get here in the sites above cited (by me and by Juancarlos2004) and various other places, the auc has put up a good show of demobilizing, and it seems that it is because the ones whose pay-roll they're on, got what they wanted: the land and its richess; so now the AUC is only used to keep the people off that land; which doesn't need as much manpower by far, as getting them off it. Considering that for all we know the farc has been no worse than the ones he's been fighting, remains that it's the ones supporting the other side who've got the land now. Seems to me that it should bring enough serious suspicion in mind to at least not accuse the farc side to be responsible for it. I can't read that government site you put a link to, and in any case it is not wise to trust the assertions of a government (or anything else) that is deepest and most abundantly rooted in or with the people who benefit most from these displacements (that's the landowners and the corporations). Likewise, the other side of that government paying the paramil. for the disarming show, is that it has rather significantly by all means, put them on its payroll. Could even say rudely so, but one way or another it sure doesn't inspire confidence either. Basicdesign (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Talking of balance, i don't see why there is not one mention of children in the UAC artices nor talk page. Is it because they so adamantly deny it for themselves? "???? my friend, you are invited to add it, use WP:RS and be careful with your WP:POVs see also WP:NOTAFORUM. Not a single article in this encyclopedia is complete.

1. [10] This is a very accurate approach. If you can't read see the chart.

this organization is supported by the European Union, International Organization for Migration (IOM), USAID, FUPAD, ASDI, CINEP, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, FUNDACIÓN COLOMBIA MULTICOLOR, Ministry of Culture of Colombia, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

read WP:RS government sites can be used. If you don't trust them that's your own view but their links can be used. --Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 12:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Membership inconsistency

From the lead:

"... With an estimated 3,000-4,000 members at 2007.[2]), "

However, later on:

"... An estimated 20-30 percent of FARC combatants are under 18 years old, with many as young as 12 years old, for a total of around 5000 children."

Both statements are referenced, making this kind of awkward -- any thoughts? -Etafly (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Relatively recent edits have messed several things up somewhat. I found the original source for the number (a %, actually, not a solid figure) of children and re-added it. The estimate for the total number of combatants has been changed without changing the source, so that one should be fixed as well. Added a different source and number. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Random Unsourced Added Comment

removed this but if you got some sources somewhere or something I saved it here so you can add it in a constructive manner: randam Fact:the Farc trades with ammerica for guns and columbai offers them drugs for the poeple in America to sell to people, the Farcs slaves have no say they must grow drugs or that the Farc will kill there family and them. UltimateDogg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Material removed from Code Pink article

We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it: [11]. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New Page

Hi. I just created the page List of FARC Political Hostages. It is still being written but all the name are in... I think. Please help out filling out the empty spaces though or making any formatting changes. Thanks, Colombiano21 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of FARC is what?

You can read the whole article and find out nothing about why it exists. What's the point of this article, then? --shmooth- (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC wants to force its communist ideology on an unwilling population, at the point of a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.115.107 (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Overview The first citation needed tag in this section can be replaced with: China View, FARC repeats demand for hostage-prisoner exchange by Du Guodong, January 16, 2008. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/16/content_7430938.htm You can alternately use: Catholic News Agency, Bishops and European mediators meet to push for release of hostages in Colombia, February 1, 2008. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11652 —Preceding unsigned comment added by N4GMiraflores (talk • contribs) 14:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FarcEp and AnnCol links are broken

The FarcEP and AnnCol links are broken and should be removed (until we can find valid URLs). Apparently those two websites are no longer working. Rmleon (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The ANNCOL link was working today (8 April), though it took a long time to load. RolandR (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC popularity

Why is there no reference to how popular the FARC is in Colombia? I think if people see that 1% approval rating they'll realise why the FARC deserves the title "terrorist organization". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.228.106.214 (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Female FARC members subjected to sexual abuse.

I have been looking at the source for the quote "Female members are subjected to sexual abuse and exploitation, including non-consensual abortion" (footnote 23), a Human Rights Watch (HRW) publication. Page 9-10 of the HRW publication clarifies the Wikipedia quote, and perhaps it should be substituted for the now-standing vague quote I listed above. The HRW publication reads: "Girls sometimes join to escape sexual abuse at home; in other respects, the reasons they join are similar to those of boys.Many told Human Rights Watch that in the guerrillas, they had roughly the same duties and possibilities of promotion as males. Yet girls in the guerrilla forces still face gender-related pressures. Although rape and overt sexual harassment are not tolerated, many male commanders use their power to form sexual liaisons with under-age girls. Girls as young as twelve are required to use contraception, and must have abortions if they get pregnant."

Mdt187 (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Check this (if you can read Spanish): http://www.eltiempo.com/conflicto/noticias/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-3955641.html 66.171.167.151 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, everyone!

Remember, the FARC are a threat against our nation, and for ALL the nations of South America, including Venezuela and Ecuador. REMEMBER, THE FARC ARE *NOT* YOUR FRIEND! If killing people in massacres, assaulting towns, killing civilian people, kidnapping people for more than 10 years, including but not limited to Ingrid Betancourt..., is to be the "people's army"? (No, they are not the army of the people)

"...It's an insult for a colombian than the FARC aren't treated as a terrorist group..." - OAS' Chancellor from Colombia

Sincerly, some colombian who are worried about the international FARC opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.2.178 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

POV: Nothing is said about their ideology.

No matter how many terrible things they have done, their ideology should be presented. And that should be done in a neutral way. The only information I find about their ideology is the following in the infobox: "Ideology: Marxism-Leninism".

Even if the ideology is illogical or contradictory, it should still be presented, and it should be done from their point of view. This is because there is no objective link between someones ideology and someones actions. --130.242.107.211 (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ortega and Chavez as Farc Allies

I think the above statement is too much to make without any direct proof to support. Accusations are present, but even the Colombian government has stopped short of saying they are allies. I believe their names should be removed. Colombiano21 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)