Talk:Shining Path/Archive 2

message: How do we know that's Pro-shining path graffiti.  It could be:
    * Partido Comunista del Peru, also known as Shining Path (as in this article)
    * Partido Comunista Paraguayo, Paraguayan Communist Party
    * Partido Comunista Peruano, Peruvian Communist Party
    * Partido Comunista Português, Portuguese Communist Party
    * Partido Comunista Puertorriqueño, Puerto Rican Communist Party
    * Partit Català Proletari, Proletarian Catalan Party
Or just some street art by a communist in Sweden who likes Angel Dust.  There is no way to confirm that picture has anything to do at all with the Shining Path. Furthermore, as it is in Stockholm, it has little to do with Peru. I think it should be removed.   Arthurian Legend 22:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When is the last time you saw someone who liked angel dust paint a hammer and sickle next to a poster of Abimael Guzman? --Descendall 00:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PCP+hammer and sickle means sendero in Stockholm. There is a small, but very active group of senderistas in Sweden. --Soman 05:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely Soman knows all of them...--AAAAA 13:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of people deciding they are the "gods": no doubt you have looked deep into his soul and decided that he is not writing in good faith? - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-PCP graffiti in Sweden?  

message: Can I assume that we should change the Abimael Guzmán article by dropping his full name, Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reynoso?  After all, "The vast majority of the World, including the Vast Majority of Peruvians, know this TERRORIST" as simply Abimael Guzmán, wikipedia guidelines on names be damned. --Descendall 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting for an answer on this one. --Descendall 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this WP:POINT or are you seriously suggesting that we should not give full names at the start of articles? That is our normal practice, per the MoS. - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be WP:POINT if I actually did it.  I'm not about to, and I'd revert if AAAAA did.  --Descendall 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abimael Guzmán

message: I think the intro from a couple of weeks back was better. It started out saying who they were, then said they never used "Shining Path" themselves, prefering to be called "PCP", and then explained why everyone calls them Shining Path. If there's no objection, I'll change it back.--Cúchullain t/c 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an objection.  Articles start with the proper name of the subject.  They are located at the most common form of their name in English. --Descendall 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a style guideline? I don't think I've seen that before. At any rate, I think it's probably best to get mediation.--Cúchullain t/c 12:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get it.  Not only have I not edited any of those articles, but even if I did it would only demonstrate that I have an interest in extremist politics.  Care to explain some more?  --Descendall 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Mista-X added a  tag to virtually every sentence in the entire article.  I'm somewhat loath to take that tag off of something that is indeed unsourced, so I wonder what everyone else thinks.  Also, if someone reverts, please revert to the version right before his.  I don't want the citations that I entered into the article to be lost in an edit war.  Thanks.  --Descendall 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to your last version. I don't like to blind revert like that, but his edits seemed quite unhelpful.--Cúchullain t/c 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, the article actually would be better with more citations.  Most of the uncited thing would be easily cited with Gorriti's The Shining Path or Stern's Shining and Other Paths.  Some of the citations he was looking for would be utterly impossible, however -- how are we supposed to give a citation for the fact that the Shining Path hasn't launched any new offensive operations recently?  I guess you could say "Read the past year's worth of El Comercio and La Republica and you won't find much mention of the Shining Path" or something.  It's pretty hard to prove a negative. --Descendall 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  What an absolute joke. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be none-point of view? But 80% of the article is anti-"Shining Path", and using words like "terrorist" and "dogma(tic)". As for "Shining Path's" alleged inactivity, the article says this then goes on to cite several recent incidents. So, instead of trying to back up the b.s., you simply revert. Very helpful for the reader, isn't it? I think my edits are very helpful in allerting people to the fact that most of these allegations are not backed up or documented. Next time I edited the article, maybe I should simply remove the unsourced materials? --Mista-X 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article needs better sources. I reverted your edit as unhelpful, because, well, it was. You act as if you were simply requesting cites, but you put a "fact" tag after  virtually every statement in the article, especially if you didn't agree with them, and you changed the wording to water down the Senderistas' actions. I'm glad Descendall has taken the time to address your concerns; because you did make some good points, but you should know blitzkreiging an article because its conclusions differ from your opinions is bad form. We have a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view; that doesn't mean we don't call a spade a spade because it offends some editors' sensibilities.--Cúchullain t/c 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bunch of sources.  By my count, there are thirty  tags left.  To be honest, I'm getting a little sick of adding sources to this thing.  If anyone could look some of this stuff up, that'd be great.  Mista-X, if you really want to be "helpful," as you say, you could add some citations also.  --Descendall 04:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced it to a dozen.  I think I'm pretty much done.  I'm tired of adding citations to this.  I repeat my call for anyone else to work on this.  --Descendall 01:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty obvious that no one else is working on this, and I've pretty much given up.  I guess the question now is when the uncited material should be deleted.  --Descendall 19:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some of it, but other things just look like they're awaiting to be verified. It would have been nice if Mista-X had decided to stick around and be "helpful".--Cúchullain t/c 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, you're not supposed to leave unverified information in an article indefinately.  I'm not going to verify these things, and I don't think anyone else is, either.  --Descendall 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Descendall, that is a misunderstanding of policy. While anyone may remove unverified information, it is perfectly OK for it to sit there unless someone has a good faith doubt about it. Unless you think there is a relevant WP:BLP issue here, which arguably there could be. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mista-X's additions

message: Though I didn't put the  tag on this article, I wholly support it.  A number of things strike me as incorrect:
1.  The article asserts that the Shining Path is considered a terrorist orgnization by the Canadian government.  According to the sources I can dig up using google, the eight groups that Canada considers to be terrorist are the Armed Islamic Group, the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Vanguards of Conquest, al-Qaeda, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, al-Ittihad al-Islam, and the Liberation Tigers. 
2.  The article asserts that Guzmán's popularity grew as time went on.  This strikes me as nearly absurd; Guzman is certainly among the least popular people in Peru, and as more and more car bombs and massacres attributed to the Shining Path occured, his popularity would have certainly soured.
3.  The article asserts that there was never any evidence that the Shining Path was connected to drug trafficking.  While drug trafficking certainly wasn't the primary motivation of the Shining Path, there is all sorts of evidence that played a part.  Shining Path openly operated in the Upper Huallaga Valley at a time when it was the most productive coca cultivating area in the entire world.  The reason that they were supported there is because they protected coca crops by fighting against the government.  The Shining Path liked it because they were then able to collect a "tax" on coca by charging protection.  All this was going on a time when Guzman was saying that sending drugs to the "yankee imperialists" was a worthwhile project.  To be honest, the very fact that these guys are fighting to drive government-sponsored eradication efforts out of the Tingo Maria area is evidence in and of itself that SL is connected to drug trafficking.  They'd have to be stupid not to go into coca.  Who else in Peru is going to support the Shining Path with guns and money?  Potato farmers?
--Descendall 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "As for #2, that may be correct but it is very difficult to measure someone's support, unless you have some sort of polls, or other scientific (or at least reliable) way of showing this."  -- which is exactly why it is completely unverifiable.  --Descendall 05:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Then it really shouldn't be included as fact, should it? --Mista-X 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't. --Descendall 06:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, why would you insert something into the article that you think doesn't belong there?  I hope it wouldn't be to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Descendall 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a democracy.  It is built on Consensus.  If you really believe that "consensus is not an issue here," what are you doing editing Wikipedia? --Descendall 06:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not verified tag

message: The Communist Party of Peru, should be referred to as such, as that is their actual name. "Sendero Luminoso" AKA "Shining Path" is a nickname, and this should be emphasizaed in the article, or the proper name should be used. Consensus is not an issue here. This reminds me of when Stockwell Day said Canadians should be allowed referendums on everything and what the majority decides should go. It was then suggested there should be a referendum to change Day's first name to "Doris". Get my point? --Mista-X 06:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a democracy.  It is built on Consensus.  If you really believe that "consensus is not an issue here," what are you doing editing Wikipedia? --Descendall 06:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Scare Quotes]]

message: I have to say that I'm a little concerned with the manner in which  Mista-X is contributing to this article.  
*The edit summary of his first edit cearly violated Wikipedia:Civility. 
*His comment that my attempt to maintain civility is a "typical" way of avoiding the truth is, at best, dangerously close to violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. 
*His comment that "consensus is not an issue here" is contradictory to Wikipedia:Consensus
*His marking of a major revert as a minor edit violates Help:Minor edit.
*His addition of material that he admits does not belong in the article may be a violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
I'm not a stickler for the rules, but we should at least make an attempt to conform to them.  This article is controversial to begin with, so we should all put it extra effort to edit this in a manner consistant with wikipedia guidelines.  --Descendall 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mista-X

message: I translated the following:  
*Partimos de que no nos adscribimos a la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, tampoco a la de Costa Rica; pero sí utilizamos sus dispositivos legales para desenmascarar y denunciar al Viejo Estado peruano.... Para nosotros, los derechos humanos son contradictorios con los derechos del pueblo porque nos basamos en el hombre como producto social, no en el hombre abstracto con derechos innatos. Los "derechos humanos" no son sino los derechos del hombre de la burguesía, posición que fue revolucionaria frente a la feudalidad; así, la libertad, la igualdad y la fraternidad fueron avanzados criterios burgueses en el pasado. Pero hoy día, desde la aparición del proletariado y más como clase organizada en Partido Comunista, con experiencias de revoluciones triunfantes, de construcción del socialismo, nueva democracia y dictadura del proletariado, se ha probado históricamente que los derechos humanos sirven a las clases opresoras y explotadoras que dirigen los Estados imperialistas y terrateniente-burocráticos. Estados burgueses en general....nuestra posición es bien clara, rechazamos y condenamos los derechos humanos porque son derechos burgueses, reaccionarios, contrarrevolucionarios; son hoy arma de revisionistas e imperialistas, principalmente del imperialismo yanqui.
As the following:
*We start by not ascribing to either Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Costa Rica [Declaration of Human Rights], but we have used their legal devices to unmask and denounce the old Peruvian state.... For us, human rights are contradictory to the rights of the people, because we base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" don't exist except for the bourgeoisie man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism, new democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner-bureaucratic states. Bourgeois states in general...Our position is very clear. We reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally Yankee imperialists."
Since Spanish is not my native language, could someone make sure that I translated it correctly?  Thanks.  --Descendall 01:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, if anyone thinks that this doesn't belong in the article, I'm open to that.  It is a long quote.  I just thought that Sendero's ideology wasn't really well represented, and that their ideas on human rights go a long way to explain the brutality of the war.  Regardless of what you think of it, if there's one thing you can't accuse Sendero of, it's straying from their ideology.  They were truely hardliners. --Descendall 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd still like it if someone checked this.  --Descendall 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation help requested

message: This talk page is huge; 136KB.  Perhaps it's time to archive some of the older stuff.  I've never actually archived anything, so I don't know how to do it.  --Descendall 05:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived everything before the August naming debates.--Cúchullain t/c 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks. --Descendall 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive needed?

message: "In that community, Shining Path 47 peasants, including 14 children aged between four and fifteen." I'd guess that the missing word is "killed", but I hesitate to make the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was.  --Descendall 03:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence no verb 

message: I've noticed that so many cases have been rejected by the mediation committee that we have now been bumped up to fifth in line.  Furthermore, the case was officially accepted.  Hopefully things will pick up and we can really start working on this soon.  Remember to put the mediation case on your watchlist.  --Descendall 04:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I'm not sure how to add a citation, and I'm afraid I'm too busy to figure it out.  But under the heading "Guerilla War" it says that Shining Path killed three priests, and later blew up their bodies with dynamite.  The dynamite claim is marked as "citation needed."
This article (see link below) supports the idea that the group did at least engage in the practice of dynamiting bodies (although it doesn't mention any priests), so I'd say it should be used as a source for that claim:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15256128/
Then again, it's an article on a news site, so the URL might not be good for more than a few weeks...
:I don't think that we can use it unless it specifically says that they blew up the priests bodies.  --Descendall 01:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible citation