From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Venezuelan national guard officer caught with AK-47 rounds for FARC[edit]

This could add Venezuela to the EU and US list of Sponsors of terror. Chavez has responded by denouncing FARC. 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 (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The article stated that the Venezuelan officer had 40,000 AK-47, (7.62x39mm) rounds in his possesion. How big a load would 40,000 rounds be? What would the volume and weight if packaged in normal military packing configuration? I'm guessing that it would require a large SUV or pick-up truck, at minimum, or a medium size cargo truck. The point of my comment is -- how easily concealable would be the 40,000 rounds? --TGC55 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A case of 1000 rounds would not be that large. A good-sized pickup truck could conceivably carry 40 cases. If I remember correctly, the standard ComBloc wooden crate holds 1440 rounds and weighs about 65 lbs, so that would be about 28 of these... 1820 lbs, a slight bit more than your standard pickup payload capacity. Twalls (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are Venezuela and Ecuador listed as "allies" of the FARC??[edit]

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!

Get serious. Chavez is a commie rat bastard will do what he can to destabilize any country in the region. Of COURSE he's helping FARC. (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Government of spain 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 (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Columbia provided proof on reyes laptop that chavez was supporting FARC.Solarsheen (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

those reyes laptop proofs are not suitable for being used as encyclopedical references since the information contained in the laptop has not been published.-- jk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Would this be sufficent proof? (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously this is ridiculous. One probably put in Venezuela as an ally of Colombia since it more or less pushed FARC to release its hostages and have killed a few of its commanders. Someone should at least add a "Citation needed" tag but since nothing has been done since like 2008 it probably should just be removed (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Went ahead and removed it as nothing had been done to cite this claim since. (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

IRA / sinn fein.[edit]

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 (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on '3 US citizens'?[edit]

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)

actually that whole section needs to be updated, and probably changed to past tense. SmartGuy (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please never forget:

Tacueyó Nov/85 - Jan/86, 164 deaths.

Machuca October 17 / 1998 , 100 deaths.

Bojayá May 2 / 2002 , 119 deaths.

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

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 :)

  • "drugrelation" :
    • [[BBC News]]. “Colombia’s most powerful rebels.” 19 [[September 2003]]. [ Available online]. Accessed 7 [[April 2007]].
    • [[BBC News]]. “Colombia’s most powerful rebels.” [[September 19]], 2003. [ Available online]. Accessed [[April 7]], 2007.

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

really big article[edit]

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)

Origin of FARC[edit]

In the third paragraph:

"FARC was established in the 1960s as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party and thus originated as a guerrilla movement."

Suggesting instead:

"FARC was founded by Manuel Marulanda and borne out of the period known as La Violencia in Colombian history."

Noting that:

"Colombia has a long tradition of constitutional government, and the Liberal and Conservative parties, founded in 1848 and 1849 respectively, are two of the oldest surviving political parties in the Americas. However, tensions between the two have frequently erupted into violence, most notably in the Thousand Days War (1899-1902) and La Violencia, beginning in 1948. Since the 1960s, government forces, left-wing insurgents and right-wing paramilitaries have been engaged in the continent's longest-running armed conflict."

and also:

"Some of the bandoleros did not surrender to the government, which caused intense military operations against them in 1954. One of them, the bandolero leader Tirofijo had changed his political and ideological inclinations from being a Liberal to supporting the Communist Party (PCC) during this period."

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)

The situation is a bit more complicated than that, but the section on their history seems to already refer to several of the facts you've mentioned and in any case includes links to other articles. La Violencia happened in the middle of preexisting land disputes, but it was also a political conflict as well and not just a class struggle of peasants vs. land owners. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 21:07, 26 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 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Drugs (no?)connection[edit]

"These guerrilla groups do collect "taxes" from drug growers, just as they do from other landowners in areas they control"


"Donnie Marshall, chief administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, testified to the House subcommittee on crime and drugs that "we haven’t come close to the conclusion that this group has been involved as a drug trafficking organization."

Jan Erik Proletaire (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other sources in the article, including ones that aren't 9-10 years old, which would argue they do have developed at least some connection, even if one could say it may have been initially exaggerated in previous reports (yet reality has also continued to change in the meanwhile). Juancarlos2004 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Biased modifications to the article[edit]

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)

I fixed it. O Fenian (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC or FARC-EP[edit]

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 (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)

Biased Page[edit]

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)

Please point out the inaccuracies so the community can fix them. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:52, 23 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:

According to Santos, he was "the impersonation of terror and a symbol of violence, the kids of 12, 14 in war, was an idea of Mono Jojoy".[128]

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)

Reduce erroneous information[edit]

1. Added information from BBC news which states that the anti-FARC rallies were in the thousands , VOA news states tens of thousands, and Al Jazeera states hundreds of thousands

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.

Other sources do speak of millions and/or reiterate the above.

Juancarlos2004 (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrorist organization[edit]

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)

If you have a problem with how reliable sources describe FARC, then it is you who has POV issues. Marxist-Leninist - fact, revolutionary - fact, guerrilla - fact. All properly sourced also. In addition please stop drive-by tagging, it is disruptive. O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
No, your POV pushing is disruptive. Reliable (i.e. mainstream and official) sources describe it as a terrorist organization. Urban XII (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Unlike you I did not add unsourced commentary, which equals POV pushing. Do you have a problem with how reliable sources describe FARC? It is a simple yes/no question. O Fenian (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Which reliable sources? Do you have a problem with how reliable sources describe FARC[1]? Why should the self-description of a criminal enterprise be given more prominence than the official and mainstream view? Urban XII (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The ones that source the sentence you object to, which I thought would be incredibly obvious? Your claim that it is a self-description melts due to those reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why should these sources be given more prominence than the official view and be taken as the truth ("is a" instead of "described by... as")? Urban XII (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
What "official" view? And all those labels are purely factual, whereas the others are referring to a classification. O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The official view in Colombia. "is a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerrilla organization based in Colombia" is a POV statement, as long as it's the only description of the organization in the first paragraph. "is a Marxist-Leninist organization in Colombia, describing itself as (whatever) and widely considered a terrorist and drug trafficking organization", is a neutral statement. The first sentence is supposed to be a summary of the most important facts describing the subject of the article. Urban XII (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
They're terrorists. I changed the article to reflect it. I would like for anyone who disputes their classification as terrorists to prove how/why they aren't. The dictionary definition is "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion" ( --Lacarids (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I decline your request, and refer you to WP:TERRORIST. O Fenian (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I decline YOUR request.... according to the US State Department they are a terrorist organization: According to the Wiki Style Guide that you cite WP:TERRORIST, "These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation." The US State department is a "reliable source," therefore I am putting it back in the article, and attributing the description to the source, with verifiable citation. Your POV is that they are not terrorists, however, this is your personal have not proven that FARC is not a terrorist organization. I have proven that they are. Your edits are disruptive. --Lacarids (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC), 12:54, 07 February 2010.
Try reading the article before editing further. O Fenian (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have read the article. I am confused why you revert changes describing them as terrorists. Do you dispute the label "terrorists"? This is not a label I have bestowed upon them. It is a label that, when looked at from a neutral point of view, anyone would have difficulty arguing against. I haven't seen you quote any reliable sources to say that they aren't terrorists. All I have seen is you reverting changes from a non-neutral point of view. --Lacarids (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC), 14:21, 07 February 2010.
If you had indeed read the rest of the article, in particular the paragraph immediately following the one you edited, you would realise why your edit did not need to be made and why it was reverted. O Fenian (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Why dont we just say "FARC is a Marxist- Leninist group that is viewed by mainstream media as a terrorist organization and by other side media sources as a guerrilla group or freedom fighters? (Undeadplatypus (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC))


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 (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I don't think this debate is even necessary. It is enough to point out what they have done, using existing sources or adding new ones, as well as including the statements different individuals and governments have made about FARC. In fact, several sections such as "Criticism" should be expanded in order to accomplish this without having an endless war of words over a single term. It is not a matter of justifying or defending FARC, whether you consider them terrorists or not, when you can say that their actions speak for themselves. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
And they are after passenger planes.Biophys (talk) 06:22, 27 February 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!!! -- (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 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Every organisation that has ever fought any established government has since the inception of the concept of terrorism (as something negative) been ascribed that term by that very government. This goes from the *revolutionary* *guerillas* of the United States to the insurgency in Iraq. (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Biased Article[edit]

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 (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)

Perhaps you could provide constructive suggestions for how to improve the article? Like you said, everything I've added is well sourced. I don't see how my improved version ("improved" as in making it reliably sourced, and factually accurate) of the drug trafficking section, is "FARC apologetics". Just because the truth doesn't sound as bad as the inaccurate, unsourced version, doesn't make it "apologetics". Please find reliable sources to back up anything you want to add or change, and help improve the article. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I do think some of your edits are worthwhile and justified, which is fair enough, but there are certain areas where your contributions can be considered at least a little unbalanced and not inherently superior in terms of POV or neutrality. In particular, the presentation of as automatically authoritative (not to mention the obvious fact that they are a Venezuela-focused site, for starters) is questionable, for reasons that have been brought up elsewhere, though that doesn't mean their perspective shouldn't be reflected. As bad as corporate media might be, I don't think giving relatively fringe sources superior weight is an improvement or necessarily in line with Wikipedia policies on the matter. See some of my recent edits for details.
Finally, it is funny for any one person to imply that there is some kind of absolute ownership over the "truth" but I suppose that's up to each individual. I believe the truth is a collective construction based on the accumulation of different perceptions, not a political or ideological matter. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
JuanCarlos2004 -- Thank you for your feedback. A few comments/replies:
  • As far as being "presented as automatically authoritative": this was not at all my intention. I would very much like to find a better source, and I know I've seen this both of these facts elsewhere (especially the % of territory controlled by FARC), so I'll try to remember where that was, and come back with better sources. And fact, the author was not writing for VenezuelaAnalysis in this case, but for Global Research. So to say, "Janicke of" is a bit misleading, since he wasn't writing in that role at the time.
  • As far as being "about Venezuela" -- are you aware of how heavily Venezuelan politics are influenced by Colombian politics? It would be impossible to perform a political/economic analysis of Venezuelan political issues without discussing Colombia, Bolivia, etc... I'm not saying that this makes it a reliable source here, but just that the fact that a site primarily focuses on Venezuela does not make it unreliable concerning Colombia.
  • I agree that the corporate media is generally dishonest and biased, and is mostly a terrible source for an encyclopedia. Corporate sources are especially terrible when reporting on a conflict whose cause is directly rooted in the activities of corporations -- i.e. in a conflict where they have an extremely strong motive (strong to the tune of billions of dollars in revenue) to lie and mislead their readers. Hardly a valid source to go to for an objective presentation of the truth. I would highly recommend finding books, academic sources, or reports from non-profits, as a replacement for corporate sources, whenever possible; all of these types of groups have an ideological bias of course, but at least we can lessen the impact of the profit motive. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I hate seeing "According to X ... Y happened" -- I feel that this tool is very often misused to present a certain point of view. Authors generally only add "According to X..." to the beginning of things they don't "like", to make it seem as if it is a fringe view, rather than a fact (e.g., note that many of the facts in this article have a single source backing them up, but not every sentence begins with "According to ..." -- why is that?). I'm not saying that this was your intention. But I think that in general, because it is commonly used this way, it is best to avoid this type of language if (a) the claim is factually accurate and the sources backing the claim are reliable, and (b) we don't have accurate and reliable sources with conflicting viewpoints. In my opinion, it would have been better to just remove the claims backed by Global Research, until a more reliable source was provided.
  • As far as my edits not being neutral in some areas -- Nobody is neutral about anything, but especially so on political/historical/economic matters. I am not claiming to be neutral, nor does Wikipedia policy require me to do so. My only claim is that I have objectively reported the views of reliable sources, and that the information presented in these reliable sources is factually accurate as well.
  • I never implied that anyone had "ownership of the truth", nor that truth is a "political or ideological matter" -- quite the opposite in fact: I think that the truth is not determined by people's opinions/beliefs/thoughts/etc., at all -- i.e. truth is not personally/socially constructed. For example, just because everyone in Europe 400 years ago had a socially constructed view of the world being flat, doesn't mean that the Earth actually was flat. The truth was that the Earth was spheroid, regardless of what anyone thought to the contrary. The word "truth", in regards to history, is what actually happened. On that not, there was an actual concrete time in the past that FARC began its involvement in certain drug related activities. That is, there is a "true" time that these activities began -- some authors have not told the truth about it, some have.
Again, thank you for your comments -- looking forward to working with you on this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
1)I'm thankful for your reply too. Well, if you read through Kiraz Janicke's article on the Global Research page you've linked to, is mentioned on top of the document right after her name. You can also find the original article on using Google (search for "the farc hostage saga" and, though the webpage itself appears to be down at the moment, it's still available on cache), which seems to indicate it's just been republished elsewhere.
2)I can definitely agree with preferring to use academic sources, in particular, whenever possible, as an alternative.
3)You do have a point, but in that case perhaps we may need more "According to X..." rather than less in this article, particularly when those statements are dealing with controversial subjects where more than one significant opinion or perspective on the matter exists. Personally, I don't necessarily see the use of those terms as a way to implicitly discredit someone, but just as an indication of attribution.
4)True, though one of the goals of Wikipedia is to ultimately create articles written in the neutral point of view, as per its NPOV policy, regardless of what we may individually believe in. None of us are born neutral, and perhaps the goal of absolute neutrality is an irrational aspiration, but it is something we must try to aspire to as editors.
5)All that is fair enough in theory, but problems arise when conflicting statements about complex events that aren't made up of easily verifiable facts come up. There is one objective history, in reality, but our access to it isn't perfect nor absolute. What happens when both the Colombian government and FARC, for instance, are each providing conflicting information about a specific incident by just focusing on different aspects of the same? An author who presents FARC's version of the events isn't lying, not necesssarily, but neither is someone who does the opposite or, to add complexity to the matter, when you have a third or fourth additional perspective on top of those previous two. What actually happened might ultimately remain elusive, though there are certainly ways to mitigate source bias and approach the "truth" of the matter. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Juancarlos2004 --
  • You are right about the article originally being on -- sorry about my confusion. Anyhow, it is very much a reliable source for political affairs in S. America; it is used on course reading lists at several universities, including Harvard, Cornell, DePaul, Univ. Pittsburgh, and others, and is generally widely acclaimed as an excellent source by many academics.
  • I don't think we need more "according to X" in the article. It clutters it up, and serves no purpose. If the purpose is merely attribution, as you stated, that's exactly what footnotes are for. No need to clutter the text with redundancies -- if they want to see who wrote it, they can look at the footnotes. And I do feel that it is often used to implicitly discredit people when everything from one side of an issue is stated as fact, and everything from an opposing viewpoint is preceded by "According to..." -- that's what I mean by it.
  • I understand Wikipedia's NPOV policies. They state that we should attempt to create an accurate, objective, and balanced representation of what reliable sources say. That's all I want to do. I don't think we disagree with each other here.
  • I understand that the Colombian government, U.S. government, FARC, etc. are all extremely biased, and that they are sometimes providing conflicting information. This is why, whenever possible, per WP:RS, we should look at reliable secondary sources to determine which of the claims are truthful, and then objectively present what they say here. I'm not saying that this will always lead us to the truth, or to the parts of the truth that matter, but it's all we can really do here.
Anyhow, I have to go now -- I've got to get some sleep. Talk to you soon -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Too long, too much detail[edit]

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've been working on the History sub-article and plan to summarize per WP:SUMMARY when it's better developed. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2010 (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 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources say FARC are Marxist/Leninist. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 29 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.-- (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2012 (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 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Those tags aren't intended to be used as a badge of shame. Unless specific points are outlined on the talk page including how they can be remedied, the tags should be removed. 2 lines of K303 11:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then please look at this since my edits are being reverted without any good justification. So I will repeat and expand what I wrote in the edit summary because those are the specific points and they explain these problems. The biggest and most evident issue is that only leftist books and websites are being cited and used as sources in thos sections, as if nobody else has ever written anything about all of these topics that isn't from their specific point of view. You can keep those sources, I have never deleted sources that were not duplicated, but if you don't add more then that is not balanced at all.
Violencia and the National Front: This section is towards one side because it does not explain that it was Liberal vs. Conservative violence, it only describes the conflict as state vs. peasants or state vs. Communists. It presents the National Front as an agreement between politicians and rich people, not saying that it really put an end to most of the country's violence. The National Front pact was confirmed by a popular referendum, it wasn't only a pact between elites. The section does not even mention that there were thousands of Liberal guerrillas who, differently from Communists and their "self-defense" groups, demobilized and made peace. I know that tons of detail is not necessary, but not even given a single small phrase to each of these things creates a historical section that is in favor of Communist views and represents only a Marxist interpretation of history.
Entrance into coca trade: I removed it because this entire section is just a copy and paste of the Drug trade section from below, in the same article. Why do we need to have the same exact paragraphs in one article? They are not even in chronological order, because the sources are very old reports from CIA and DEA from 1990s, but next section jumps back to the 1980s history. It makes no sense to read something like that twice and in complete disorder.
Drug trade I added some newer information for balance, because I can't stand to see such things ignored only using old information from the 1990s. But another point: please tell me what is neutral about using a Pablo Escobar quote? Why is that quote even in there? It shows that he is defending himself and saying he has no links to guerrillas, but that is a propaganda. It would make sense if this was an essay or a book, but it is not right for an encyclopedia. If you can have that quote there, then shouldn't we add more quotes from people who say that drug lords and guerrillas do have a relationship? Why can't I quote John Ashcroft or Alvaro Uribe along with Escobar?
La Uribe Agreement and Union Patriótica: This section is not balanced because it ignores that FARC never demobilized and they continue to kill and kidnap people even at the same time as the Unión Patriótica existed and campaigned. It also does not say that the Unión Patriotica also had people who did not agree with FARC and with the Communist Party. It is a section where the description is only interested in saying that the Unión Patriotica existed and it was destroyed. Nothing else is given importance, it is incomplete information exclusively from a Communist perspective.
Instead of just revert after revert, I want to ask for a response from Jrtayloriv and those who think this page is already complete, balanced and neutral to the point of making my edits useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvarohurtadog (talkcontribs) 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alvarohurtadog. I've removed the tag because the article is currently nominated for WP:ITN, which does not allow orange tags. I've removed the Escobar quote, but this leaves two issues you raise: (1) La violencia being liberal vs conservative and (2) FARC not disengaging following the Uribe agreement. I've had a look at a few difference sources and did not see references to any of these things, so I don't feel able to change them. However, you you know of sources that can back up these claim, please get back. Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the article in its present form has a POV inclined toward the left. One example: in 1.3 Plan Lazo, scare quotes are used around "civil defense" describing groups on the right, but the words "self defense" are used without scare quotes, just a few sentences later. to describe groups on the left. (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Barry King


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 suggest searching in Humans Rights Watch, or in scholar sources for a more precise data of FARC's size.--Forich (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

On false accusations of POV pushing.[edit]

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.


Mhazard9 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Mhazard9, I do think that right now the article is pretty balanced. I am a Spaniard that has been living in Colombia for over 40 years and I have double citizenship. I also have seen this article changing over time for the last 5 years at least and contributed as much as possible.
In this capacity, I would recommend to take in account that a true NPOV in this article has to register the fact that there are views about FARC from many points of view, to the right and left of the political spectrum in Colombia. Right now the article has a strong tendency toward a leftist POV, which is not bad, given the fact that, at least in Colombia and US, FARC are seen as "The Devil" and the discourse of the right has to think that ANY FARC position has no merit at all. It is true that FARC ability for diplomacy is, to say the least, rudimentary. It is also true that for many, many years they practiced cruelly (if I may intersperse and adjective) a practice of kidnapping middle class and poor people for 3.000 dollars or, some times, even less. That's why a large percentage of Colombia people consider them to be "bandits" and now (after 9/11) "terrorists". FARC (and its communist pro-Chinese counterpart, the ELN) have make huge mistakes, like Bojayá massacre, or blowing a pipeline passing through a town. However, except by citing percentages in polls, that assertion of "people thinking they're terrorists" contributes little to understand FARC, as you note. It is also true that many people, among which you can count me, consider that FARC intentions of fighting the oligarchy, that contributes to Colombia being one of the countries with the most unjust distribution of money, is also justified. However, even if that's the case for the nascent leftist socialist parties in Colombia, like Polo Democrático, Progresistas or Partido Verde, it is also true that the insistence of FARC on communism is also worrying for most people that thinks like I do: Pol Pot and its radical proposals are fresh in the mind of some. Communists are not precisely the pushers of democracy, if you follow my drift.
So, I think I would give a nice counterbalance if I left the article as it is, which, as I said, seems pretty balanced, adding, of course with quotations, that FARC is considered a terrorist organization by the US and the EU. This is a point that could satisfy those in Colombia that think they are a terrorist organization and, also, it is strictly true, as you can consult the list of terrorist organizations of those entities and find FARC among them. On a side note, for the Colombian government to comply with some (possible) demands made by FARC on no extradition and pardon of some of their commanders, those governments (US and UE) should remove FARC from those lists. I beg to everybody involved in this article to take in account that for NPOV to be reached in polarized subjects similar to this one you have to find quotes from both sides and write them here. I strongly believe that a good encyclopedist doesn't tell, he merely shows.--Ciroa (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"adding, of course with quotations, that FARC is considered a terrorist organization by the US and the EU" would appear to be redundant due to the lead already saying "As such, the FARC has been classified as a terrorist organization by the governments of Colombia, the United States, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, and the European Union". 2 lines of K303 21:09, 28 August 2012 (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)

In this reference the precise location of FARC guerrilla is shown. Let's use this information in the article.--Forich (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Main picture[edit]

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)

How about using an updated map of FARC as a main picture, such as the one found in page 35 of this source: ? --Forich (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is another map, this one is from 2008: page 52Forich (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2013 (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)

'40% of territory' source time conflict[edit]

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)


>> FARC may have the answer to Colombia's drug woes(Lihaas (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)).

KIA Symbol[edit]

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)

Trying to add a little bit about their governance style need help[edit]

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 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on FARC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism argument again[edit]

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)

Attack to Fernando Londoño[edit]

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 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FARC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on FARC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

HRW claims[edit]

HRW 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," which I quoted in the footnote. That means that always being forced to join is not neutral, some do join voluntarily (as much as that is possible of a minor). El_C 04:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You're reading a quote from a report of that organization but you are not reading all the reports. You're putting the information in favor of a group that has done much damage to the children of Colombia.-- (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the HRW report is in favour of the FARC—I think that's your reading of it based on your own point of view. But the article should aim for neutrality. El_C 05:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Irregular forces exploit children’s vulnerability. They mount recruitment drives that glamorize the warrior life. Children never want to join the war. Adults are the only ones responsible for violating the right to life and to a quiet life of children. There is no true neutrality in the article when you say that children want to join the war.-- (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying it—HRW is saying that some may have seen joining as better than the alternative. And I disagree that they are biased toward the FARC. El_C 05:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't modify your responses after you submit them(!). El_C 05:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
HRW says: From the beginning of their training, both guerrilla and paramilitary child recruits are taught to treat the other side’s fighters or sympathizers without mercy. Adults order children to kill, mutilate, and torture, conditioning them to the cruelest abuses. Not only do children face the same treatment should they fall into the hands of the enemy, many fear it from fellow fighters. Children who fail in their military duties or try to desert can face summary execution by comrades sometimes no older than themselves. Source: “YOU’LL LEARN NOT TO CRY” Child Combatants in Colombia -- (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you bold that passage. What does that have to do with reasons to join being either mostly voluntary or coercive? The above dosen't mean there aren't multiple reasons to join. It dosen't mean "most" are forced to join, which is what your claim is. HRW cites multiple reasons to join, some voluntary, some coercive—what's "most" seems like conjecture. You are getting offtopic—try to stay focused on the single issue being disputed. El_C 05:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)