Talk:Abimael Guzmán

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Portal:Peru
 Peru Portal
This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] "Terrorists"

Why does this article consistly refer to members of the Communist Party of Peru as "terrorists"? This is a POV slur. Wikipedia's policy even mentions terrorist as a word to be avoided. Shorne 04:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I could not find a sentence in which the "Communist Party" is labeled as "Terrorist". The one labeled as terrorist is "Shining Path", which in fact IS a terrorist group.--AAAAA 10:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The "Shining Path" calls itself the Communist Party of Peru; that's the name that should be used.
      • If you call yourself "Napoleon Bonaparte", it doesn't mean you are "Napoleon Bonaparte". Shining Path is the name for which the TERRORIST group that Abimael Guzman founded is universally known.--AAAAA 11:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It is not a "fact" but an opinion that the Communist Party of Peru is a "terrorist" group. Again, the use of the loaded word terrorist is officially discouraged at Wikipedia, for reasons too obvious to mention. I am going to change these references. Shorne 17:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • According to the U.S. DOD, Shining Path IS a terrorist organization. See U.S. DOD Foreign Terrorist Organizations, April 22, 2004. Why are you trying to "defend" these terrorists?--AAAAA 11:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • The US DOD is entitled to its opinion, but that opinion should not be woven into this article. And the only thing that I'm defending here is NPOV. Shorne 16:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • This is a political matter internal to Peru, who cares what the opinion put forth by some bureucrat thousands of miles away in the US is? Do we have to accept the opinions of US bureucrats as authoritative now? Ruy Lopez 23:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There is an objective and straightforward definition for terrorism: attacking civilian targets as part of a psychological campaign to weaken the resolve of the adversary. Shining Path very clearly fits this bill,
    • Wrong. It is not (legally) terrorism if done in the context of a war, in which context this clearly is. The deliberately targeting of civilian populations would fall under the heading of war crimes. I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting this -- to accuse someone of bewing a "war criminal" is hardly an endorsement. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • and if the word "terrorism" hadn't acquired strongly negative connotations since it was first used (approvingly) by some leaders of the French Revolution, I think even Abimael Guzman would agree that his was a terrorist organization. But I would be OK with the way Shorne wants the article phrased except for two things: make it clear that Shining Path attacked many civilian targets, and fix the statement that half of the 69,000 victims were killed by the government. The reports say a third, with the remaining sixth being the work of other guerrillas who fought both the government and the Shining Path. - Eb.hoop 22:10 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • See the article Terrorism, which acknowledges that the definition is anything but objective and straightforward. For example, there is little question but that the US has "attack[ed] civilian targets" in Iraq since the early 1990s "as part of a psychological campaign to weaken the resolve of the adversary", but you know damn well that an attempt to speak of the US as a terrorist organisation in the article United States would not be allowed to stand for two minutes. And I don't think it should be allowed to stand, for it would contribute nothing but bias to the article. Likewise, Fujimori stands accused of the sorts of activities that you describe; there's even an Interpol warrant for his arrest. But when is he ever called a terrorist?
      • As I said, I think the term "terrorism" has become loaded and if I'm sympathetic to your not want to use it descriptively. But the fact is that the Shining Path killed mostly civilians (in fact, many of them the peasants it was supposed to be fighting for). As for the body count, just check out the references in Shining Path. I copy one here: [1]. - Eb.hoop 4:05 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian Targets

    • With regard to "attacking civilian targets", such a strategy doesn't even make sense for a small revolutionary movement that needs popular support if it is to succeed. It may make sense, in a perverse way, for a régime that is already in power, and indeed the Peruvian state has been accused of terrorism.
    • I want to see which "reports" make that claim about the death toll. I'll allow the statement to stand if it is supported by a halfway decent reference. As for attacking civilian targets, again, I want a reference. If the "civilian targets" are police stations, all bets are off. Shorne 02:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • It seems that Shorne has NO IDEA of what happened in Peru in the Shining Path "terror" era (before Abimael was captured). These TERRORISTS did indeed bomb civilian targets. Two notable examples, among many, are the TARATA bomb (no police or military target at all, with more than 100 civilians dead AT THEIR HOMES) and the CHANNEL 2 bomb (a civilian owned TV station). Why do you try to defend these terrorists?--AAAAA 03:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Because they're communists. Shorne is out to make Wikipedia read like a Soviet encyclopedia. VeryVerily 03:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Will you please try to stick to the issues? I haven't defended anyone. I've questioned some biased and incorrect statements. Obviously rationality is not your long suit, but please do make an effort. Shorne 07:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Obviously, I'm the one not sticking to the issues and instead resorting to personal attacks. VeryVerily 09:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • I wasn't talking to you. Shorne 15:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Just in case anybody wants proof of the Tarata bombing, where are some articles (although articles differ on the amount of dead, everybody agrees that it was definitely a civilian target:
        • Barbaries Comparadas (in Spanish)
        • Guzman wants to "apologize" (Guzman: "Sorry, I killed your family in my TERRORIST attack to civilian, but it was a mistake"...Me: "Mr. Guzman, I don't know anybody there that died, but I won't accept your apology)--AAAAA 04:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Umm, did you even read the Spanish article that you cited? (Which, incidentally, is suspect, simply because Guzmán is obviously not in a position to speak freely. The Peruvian state denies him access even to international teams of lawyers and human-rights activists.) It said that the bombing was a mistake and that Guzmán wished to apologise personally for it to the families concerned. That hardly counts as "attacking civilian targets". What does count as attacking civilian targets is sending a death squad to open fire on a barbecue at which alleged members of the Communist Party of Peru were present. Ever heard of Fujimori's Barrios Altos massacre? Shorne 07:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Again, sticking to the issues? See Tu quoque. VeryVerily 10:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • 1. Yes, I read the article. The article puts this terrorist in a "human" light, and my logic tells me that it is genuine. The Peruvian government would shurely be opposed to showing a "nicer" side of this terrorist.--AAAAA 12:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • 2. Why is is that those "human-rights" activists are always very interested in "protecting" the life of TERRORISTS like Guzman, and they don't care about the TEN OF THOUSANDS of life this terrorist sent to their deaths? Aren't you ASHAMED of whitewashing this terrorist?--AAAAA 12:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • 3. The fact that this terrorist is now "supposedly" showing remorse, does not take away the FACT that Tarata was indeed a civilian target, and it happened.--AAAAA 12:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • 4. We are not discussing Fujimori here. Feel free to send your complaints to the Japanese Government (Fujimori is now in Japan).--AAAAA 12:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, I know that Fujimori ran off to Japan for protection. As for Tarata, the fact that he claims that it was an error shows that it was not a "target". Shorne 15:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • The fact that this TERRORIST is now "apologizing" after years in prison, does not make him less terrorist. The "target" is no less civilian. He did not apologize when he was not yet captured. Why do you like to defend him so much? Are you also a TERRORIST, or you just LIKE terrorists?--AAAAA 04:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Quote: Shining Path "has bombed police headquarters and municipal offices, gas stations and middle-class apartment buildings, think tanks and public schools. It has paralyzed the country with so-called armed strikes, and set fire to bus drivers who defied its orders to stay at home on strike days. It has murdered peasant families and leftist leaders. Most ofen, victims are killed in full view of their family or community. Sometimes they are hanged and sometimes shot, but often an execution-squad member -- in many cases a woman -- delivers the coup de grace with a knife. Sometimes the tail of a live cat will be set on fire and then the animal will be let loose on a field of corn ready for picking. Sometimes a man who has just finished casting a mandatory vote in a national election will have the finger with the telltale electoral ink hacked off." Source: Alma Guillermoprieto, "Letter from Lima: Down the Shining Path," New Yorker, 8 Feb. 1993, p. 64-75. [This is a piece written by a left-friendly author who strongly attacks Fujimori's government and the Peruvian system.] --Eb.hoop 23:15 5 Nov 2004 (UTC).
      • Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes. Where did she get this information? We're not told. It's little better than gossip. Shorne 03:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you Eb.hoop for the quote. It shows the very nature of Mr. Guzman and his group (Shining Path). What I don't understand is why Shorne whitewashes this TERRORIST and his TERRORIST group. Of is it that Shorne is a member of Shining Path and wants to somehow "clean" himself by whitewashing these terrorists? I sincerely don't understand. Do you understand?--AAAAA 23:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not going to succumb, or rather submit, to your juvenile red-baiting. Since you obviously cannot distinguish rational discussion from ad hominem attacks, I have nothing to say to you. Go away. Shorne 03:47, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Terrorism by Abimael Guzman

Here's a list of Articles evidencing Mr. Guzman's terrorism:

So, Shorne, do you still need more proof?--AAAAA 15:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting page

I have protected the page to stop an edit war... Though this requires me to stay uninvolved in the dispute, I think that I'm still allowed to suggest a possible compromise between Shorne and AAAAA... The article can report that he is wanted on charges on terrorism in Peru. However, neutrality disputes are probably inevitable if the article refers to Shining Path as a "terrorist" organization without attribution. Wikipedia editors can report what other states, organizations, institutions, etc. assert, but I'm not sure if it's the business of Wikipedia editors to make the judgment call themselves regarding whether or not Shining Path is a terrorist organization, given the fact that we lack a system of editorial arbitration. 172 05:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That picture is just nasty, and probably not Abimael Guzman. Mebbe it can be changed? Mrfixter 01:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The picture is one which most Peruvians remember Abimael. And it is Abimael.--AAAAA 12:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, the picture was vandalized. Check the page history for it if you really want to know. Everyking 15:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the term TERRORIST in Wikipedia

  • Shorne, so I can understand your position better, can you tell us when would you consider usage of the term 'terrorist' to be appropriate on Wikipedia? Or is it that you see it as such a loaded word that the only NPOV way to use the word is solely in the context of the contraversy of its utilization? --Bletch 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Good question. Since you seem to be a reasonable person, I'll take the time and the trouble to answer it.
    My position is essentially that spelled out in Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The word terrorist, to the extent that it has any meaning at all, has come to mean something like 'militant opposed to the status quo'. It's just a pejorative word that serves to end discussion, as can be seen from this talk page. Indeed, the very point of labelling someone "terrorist" seems to be to put him beyond the bounds of rational discussion.
    Nor is it informative. "X is a terrorist organisation"—what does that tell me? Not much. More helpful is something like "X is conducting a Marxist revolution".
    It also reflects a bias in favour of the status quo. No one here calls the Peruvian government "terrorist" even though it has attacked civilian targets countless times. There's no place here for pejorative terms that are so selectively applied.
    I see little valid NPOV use for the word at Wikipedia. In this particular article, I have allowed it to stand where it referred to specific charges. For example, the article mentions "anti-terrorism measures under which [some revolutionaries from the Communist Party of Peru] had been convicted". That's fine. It is a fact that the Peruvian state cited "terrorism" against Guzmán and the others. We can report that here as long as we do so at arm's length. It is inappropriate for us to make the accusation ourselves or even to take advantage of the Peruvian charge of "terrorism" as an excuse to promote a POV.
    I hope this answers your question. Shorne 09:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Commenting on Shorne's position:
      The word Terrorism is clearly defined in Wikipedia (see Definitions of terrorism).
      As per the U.S. DoD, there is a FINITE number of terrorist organizations. Shining Path is one of them.
      • Again, why does an organisation which might be argued to have an obvious bias, and one in a random other country, have the right to define the term? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
      The fact that the Peruvian government has or might have used cruelty in its response to terrorism (see State Terrorism) has nothing to do with the fact that Shining Path is a terrorist organization.
      I don't mind mentioning that Shining path is Maoist, Leftist, Marxist or whatever-ist, and that is mentioned in the article. But it should ALSO be mentioned that they are a terrorist organization, because they are.
      In my point of view, I would agree with the world "militant" if the group had attacked only state or military targets. But once it started attacking civilians just to be more "famous", they became TERRORISTS.
      The terrorism used by Shining Path (ant its leader, Abimael Guzman) is not a POV. It is a FACT. If Shorne doesn't agree, I would like to ask if it is appropriate to label Al Qaeda as "militant" only? Yes, both Al Qaeda are "militant", but they are also both TERRORIST.--AAAAA 17:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone else deal with this person, please. I'm tired of casting pearls before swine. Shorne 18:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Question to Shorne: Aside from what should be or should not be included in the article, I would like to ask you a direct question. Do you consider Shining Path a terrorist organization? Please answer YES or NO.--AAAAA 06:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My opinion, like yours, is of no relevance in an article that is SUPPOSED TO BE NPOV. But the answer to your intrusive question is HELL, NO. Shorne 09:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I concur with AAAAA. "Terrorist" is a word that has a quite clearly defined meaning. And I think there is no doubt Shining Path fits the definition. If "terrorist" is received as a pejorative word, it just means that people do not like terrorism. Hence trying to remove that word is trying to cheat them, that is, trying to hide the reality from them. It is also trying to remove an useful word from the public discourse. The word does not reflect a bias in favour of the status quo. I can easily immagine a right-wing terrorist organization which tries to defend the status quo. If an organization is terrorist, let us say so. In this case the argument "we should not use this word, because people will think that the organization is bad" resolves itself into "we should not use this word, because people will discover what the organization really is". Boraczek 10:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even if what you are saying were true, that "'[t]errorist is a word that has a quite clearly defined meaning," it is clear that it doesn't fit here. Those who commit attacks against or purposely or indiscriminately kill civilians and protected persons during a war are war criminals, something that is hardly an endorsement. Why are you so enamored of the word "terrorist," given this? If the case has been made that Dr. Guzman is a war criminal, or that he has been involved in the promotion of war crimes, the commission of war crimes, conspiracy to commit war crimes, it very well should be put in this article. But he is not a "terrorist." --Daniel C. Boyer 21:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that Guzmán does not meet the definition of terrorist being used at Category:Terrorists:

This category is for individuals that have personally used and/or verifiably were about to put in practice terrorist tactics, here understood as inducing, or convincingly threatening to induce, outside the operations of a regular armed conflict, a life-threatening situation in a community, with the objective of exploiting, for purposes that are broader than personal gain, the possible weakness of a community that experiences collective terror.

Guzmán is the chairman of the Communist Party of Peru, which is waging what it calls people's war (revolution). Accordingly, there is a regular armed conflict between the CPP and the Peruvian régime, one that has been on now for a quarter of a century. In addition, no one has given any evidence that Guzmán himself has personally carried out alleged "terrorist" acts, and recent reports from the BBC and other sources even point out that the Peruvian government accuses him in court of being the intellectual inspiration of the alleged acts rather than the person who performed them. Therefore he should be removed immediately from Category:Terrorists. Shorne 12:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • In response to Shorne's comments:
    • Guzman is NOT the chairman of the Communits Party of Peru. According to Broadleft.org, the oldest communist party in Peru is the Partido Comunista Peruano Unidad, which is located at Plaza Ramón Castilla N. 67 Lima with Phone +51 1 3306106 and email: unidad@ec-red.com, and is lead by Renán Raffo Muñoz. There is another faction that also considers itself the communist party of Peru: Partido Comunista del Peru Patria Roja, pcdelp@patriaroja.org.pe, Jr. Miró Quesada 360 - Cercado de Lima, Peru, and is now headed by Alberto Moreno. I believe Guzman was at some point part of the communist party, but he was never elected as President of the communist party of Peru, and he formed his group (now known as Shining Path) in 1960. So, using an analogy, imagine that one day you decide to become part of the U.S. Democratic party. You never get to be elected as leader. One day you decide that they are not doing things the way you like it and you form your own group and name it also U.S. Democratic party. It obviously doesn't mean that you are the leader of the U.S. Democratic party. It only means you are the leader of YOUR group.
    • There is NO "Regular armed conflict" between the CPP and the Peruvian Regime. Feel free to email or call the Peruvian Communist Party of Peru. I am sure they will answer that they are in NO "Armed Conflict" with the Peruvian State. Both Unidad and Patria Roja state they are "fighiting for the rights of the people" (or whatever), but they do not NORMALLY use VIOLENCE against civilians, as Shining Path has done over the years.
      • International law would assert that the actual situation is what would determine whether or not there is an "armed conflict," not the claims of one party to the conflict, which might have a motive for denying the truth. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure that most Peruvians firmly believe that Shining Path is a terrorist organization and Abimael Guzman is a terrorist. I am convinced that most Wikipedians, if asked, would also say the same. The U.S. DoD lists Shining Path as a Terrorist organization. The fact that Shorne believes that they are not, doesn't mean that they are not and doesn't make the article POV if Guzman and Shining Path are labeled as terrorists.
    • Shorne states that since Abimael Guzman and his Shining Path group "declared war" to the Peruvian State, they are now in an "Armed Conflict" and cannot be considered terrorists. With that same token, nobody could EVER label any person or organization as terrorist, since (I believe) all of the known terrorist organizations in the world have "declared war" to something or somebody. With Shorne's understanding of the definition of terrorist, Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization, because it has "declared war" to the U.S.
    • I don't think that Guzman has "personally" put a bomb to kill civilians. However, the group is is a leader of (Shining Path) has used bombs to kills civilians and has used cold blooded murder to kill thousands of people in villages. Therefore, he perfectly fits the definition of terrorist by having "Induced a life-threating situation in a community..."--AAAAA 17:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guzmán's organisation calls itself the Communist Party of Peru (in Spanish, Partido Comunista del Perú). "Shining Path" is an externally imposed name that the CPP does not use. Shorne 17:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe this to be correct: Guzman's group calls itself the Communist Party of Peru and not Shining Path. However:
    • Shining Path is the name under MILLIONS of PERUVIANS know his organization, so I believe it to be proper to use it as the name for Guzman's group in Wikipedia.

[edit] Photo

We also need a better photo, if possible. This one of Guzmán in prison promotes a certain POV. Shorne 10:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Almost all of the ones I see on Google Images either show him in jail or are very stylized. The only one that seems to be decent is this one: http://i.esmas.com/image/0/000/003/254/abiamal_N.jpg. Not sure if there are copyright problems with it, or if Google Images is BS-ing me and giving me someone else. Also, it still makes sense to still use the jail pic in addition to a better pic. --Bletch 03:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have made one, though it is probably inappopriate for inclusion here. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't mind using that one in addition to the neutral one. The neutral one, however, should be primary. Shorne 13:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The jail picture is the one that most Peruvians (MILLIONS of them) remember Abimael by, so I think it is justified to have it there as it is. Of course, other pictures can be added if anybody pleases to do so.--AAAAA 05:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You just don't get it, do you? Wikipedia isn't about pushing the dominant opinion of those in power. I'm sure that these words, like everything else I said, will not be heard by the person who posted a picture of someone spreading his anus. Shorne 11:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Shorne, you are the one that doesn't get it. The current picture is the one by which most peruvians remember Mr. Guzman. Yes, the people in power at the time forcibly put him on those clothes to "show him off" to the peruvian public. They succeeded in imprinting that memory into millions of Peruvians. Therefore, i think it is the correct picture to show as the main picture. You are the one that should not impose YOUR POV by putting the picture YOU like.--AAAAA 12:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Shorne, why are you talking "anus" here? The person who posted a picture...? What are you talking about? Are you running out of arguments?--AAAAA 12:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • There's no talking with you. I knew that weeks ago; I don't know why I wasted my time again trying to get a few words through your skull. Remind me not to do so again. Shorne 13:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • In all fairness, why not have both? The article on Saddam Hussein shows numerous photos of him, including the jail pic. It seems to me what is good enough for Saddam Hussein is good enough for Guzman. --Bletch 14:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I mentioned above that I'm content to have both photos, provided that the neutral one predominate. The other should appear, if at all, later in the article, at an appropriate point. Shorne 14:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that there can be two ore more pictures. But for Guzman, the most appropriate one is the one by which Millions of Peruvians remember him.--AAAAA 03:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • While I agree that Guzman's most famous photograph is certainly that of his capture (a quick Google images search will remove all doubt), the article is about primarily about Guzman, and his claim to fame is in being leader of Sendero Luminoso first and foremost, and being a jailbird second. It is for that reason that I believe that more conventional photograph would be appropriate as the primary photograph. Having said that, I cannot find any good candidates without copyright strings, and it seems that Shorne has left us, so it is unlikely that we will see any good candidates anytime soon. --Bletch 03:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is it Shining Path or is it Communist Party of Peru?

  • The fact that Guzman's group calls itself the Communist Party of Peru does NOT make them the official Communist Party of Peru. I suggest you visit http://pcp.miarroba.com or http://www.patriaroja.org.pe.--AAAAA 18:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I reject the notion that the Communist Party of Peru should not be allowed the dignity of using its own name. The only reason that millions of Peruvians know it as Sendero Luminoso is that the Peruvian state imposed this bogus name through its corporate media. You may as well rename me Higham (a village near Shorne) without my consent and go around using that name as if it were proper. The US has done the same thing to many other groups, such as the Communist Party of Kampuchea (called by the US "the Khmer Rouge") and the National Liberation Front (the "Viet Cong"). It wouldn't do for the US to be found invading another country to crush its National Liberation Front or sending funds and military hardware to the Communist Party of Kampuchea, so it invents other names for these entities instead. Well, you can play Uncle Sam's onomastic games, but I don't intend to. And I'll thank you for not "correcting" my usage.
      • I also believe that the Communist Party of Peru should be allowed to use its own name. The disagreement here is that you state that Shining Path is the Communist Party of Peru and I believe you are wrong. I think that Shining Path wants to be considered as the Communist Party of Peru, but they are not.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I've never said that the CPP is "official" in any way. Of course the Peruvian régime does not recognise it as an "official" party. So what? Shorne 19:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • But there are Socialist and Communist parties that are represented in Peru, have had candidates in democratic elections, have a physical location, phone, fax, email, etc.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Having a physical location and a telephone has never been a requirement for being a political party. A party can be "underground," and there is nothing to say that that political party isn't bad, even evil. But it is a political party. If there is a controversy over the name of the party, let it be reflected in the relevant article(s). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
      • An the "régime" Shorne mentions, with all its flaws, has been elected democratically. The fact that Shorne doesn't seem to like democratically elected governments, doesn't make them less democratic or less valid. I guess Shorne prefers to live in a dictatorship like Fidel Castro's Cuba.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • However valid may or may not be this POV, it's still a POV, and one that doesn't have a place in this Wikipedia article. NPOV is not to state that "democratic" regimes are "valid," as you put it. You should read some editing guidelines. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, Wikipedia tends to use the "common names" for certain topics over self identified names if they conflict. For example, the article about the Aztec Empire is called 'Aztec Empire', a name that was coined in the 1800s; hundreds of years after the fall of that civilization. Same thing with the 'Byzantine Empire', which called itself the Roman Empire. For whatever reasons, those names got adopted by the mainstream and they stuck for better or worse. IMHO it seems that the same should be done with the Sendero Luminoso, which is the name that most people know them by. When I was in Peru, the local newspaper called them the 'Sendero Luminoso'. Whether the name is what they call themselves (IMHO) should not come in to play when naming a Wikipedia article (though of course, it should be mentioned in the article.) On another note, it does seem to be prudent to use 'Maoist revolutionaries' instead of 'terrorists'; it bypasses all of those nasty NPOV issues and arguments, and additionally happens to be more descriptive while we are at it. --Bletch 03:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • From what I understand of Bletch's argument, Shining Path should still be named Shining Path in Wikipedia. As I have mentioned many times before, Shining Path, like it or not, is the name with which Millions of Peruvians and probably Millions of other people in the world know this terrorist group.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The preference for "common names" reflects a POV. We have here the bizarre situation of an article entitled "Shining Path" that shows a logo labelled "PCP"—Partido Comunista del Perú. I agree, however, that an informative description such as "Maoist revolutionaries" is far better than a propagandistic slur such as "terrorists". Shorne 11:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not think that there is any "bizarre" situation in the Shining path article. The group is commonly known as Shining Path, so that should be the correct name in Wikipedia. And the flag is the only one that Shining Path (that I know of) has used. In fact, I was the one that put it in the article. But I don't see anything bizarre in having both. Shining Path is the name everybody knows, and that flag is the only flag that they have used. That is the reality. So what's wrong or "bizarre" with that?--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I think it is alright to mention that Shining Path is a group of Maoist Revolutionaries. That is a fact. But it is ALSO a fact that they are terrorists. If they had only been "revolutionaries" without using terrorist tactics, then I wouldn't be discussing anything here. But once they crossed the line and started bombing everywhere and everybody indiscriminately, they stamped the TERRORIST adjective unto themselves forever.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • The fact is that the so-called "Shining Path" is alleged to have engaged in illegal conduct in the course of a war (despite claims -- alternating with admissions -- that this is not the case). "Terrorism" is, under the law, irrelevant to this context -- it is legally not terrorism. It might be said to be war crimes, which is [i]hardly[/i] an endorsement of the conduct, but terrorism has nothing to do with it. --~!Daniel C. Boyer
          Hacer la revolución no es ofrecer un banquete, ni escribir una obra, ni pintar un cuadro o hacer un bordado; no puede ser tan elegante, tan pausada y fina, tan apacible, amable, cortés, moderada y magnánima. Una revolución es una insurrección, es un acto de violencia mediante el cual una clase derroca a otra.
          Mao Zedong, 1927
  • If the preference for "common names" violates NPOV, it seems that we must rename every article whether historical or contemporary to reflect "self names." This would imply renaming almost every article about Native American tribes, historical empires like the Byzantine Empire, the names of countries like China, Korea and Japan (which would have to be Chungkuo, Taehan and Nippon respectively) and all sorts of stuff. That does not seem feasible or worthwhile to me, because to me the purpose of a title is a way to identify the content of the article. And for whatever reason, a majority of people in the world identify the PCP as "Sendero Luminoso" or "The Shining Path." To me, it does not seem to be Wikipedia's place to contest that. There is plenty of room in the article to give the PCP's self identified name just as there is room in the Germany article to identify it as "Federal Republic of Germany." On the topic of the "bizarre situation", maybe this is just me but I don't see that as very problematic. --Bletch 14:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Point of fact: "Taehan" is not the Korean name of Korea. That is either Chosŏn (in North Korea and in historical contexts) or Hanguk (in South Korea). Actually both Hanguk and Taehan are both in use. To my knowledge, Taehan is used in more formal situations (for example, the full Korean name of the ROK is Taehan Minguk.) --Bletch 15:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing Byzantine Empire, China, and the like is silly. Those names are established in English and are realistically uncontested. The CPP (or PCP) is a living party that was misnamed by its opposition for political reasons. Taking the side of the opposition is POV. Using the party's own name is not.
    • Actually, there has been a substantial movement to restore more authentic names of Native American nations, such as Inuit in the place of Eskimo. This is not a case like Byzantine Empire, which is effectively a dead issue. It's very much of current interest. I acknowledge that some of these cases may be difficult to decide, but this one about the CPP is not one of them.
    • As for those movements, you are right that there are active movements to rename things like Eskimo --> Inuit and so forth (I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to them), but (IMHO) Wikipedia article titles is not an appropriate venue for such disputes. If the other usage achieves the upper hand in the dispute to a certain degree, then the Wikipedia article titles should reflect them. In the case of Inuit (which for whatever reason seems to be winning) I'd probably say that they have succeeded and the article titles should be changed. But until that is the case, Wikipedia article titles should reflect the current common usage. Similarly, IMHO it would only be appropriate to call Sendero Luminoso the PCP once 51%+ of common usage calls them "PCP". We are far from that point. While I am certainly aware that many names have political origins, consistently adopting the common usage for living and dead issues is not POV. We probably have to agree to disagree on this point I guess. --Bletch 15:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree 100% with Bletch. Shorne doesn't like the "Shining Path" name. That is a POV. But most Peruvians known Mr. Guzman's group as Shining Path. That is a REALITY.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aie... This talk page is out of control. At any rate, if you read the relevant literature you will find that the origin of the name "Shining Path" is the following: In the 1960's, the Communist Party of Peru split up over ideological and personal disputes. Those who left the party created their own faction, which they called the Communist Party of Peru, Red Flag ("Bandera Roja" in Spanish). That group split again in 1969 when Guzmán and others formed yet another faction, which they called "The Communist Party of Peru on the Shining Path of José Carlos Mariátegui." The "Shining Path" name was originally their own choice and meant to distinguish themselves from the other Communist Parties of Peru. José Carlos Mariátegui (1894-1930) was the founder of the first Peruvian communist party. The choice of name implies that they saw themselves as more faithful to the founders of Peruvian communism than the mainstream Communist Party of Peru. (Incidentally, I noticed that in the recent movie The Motorcycle Diaries the actor who plays Ernesto Guevara is shown at one point reading Mariátegui.)

I suspect that Shorne might not be fully aware that the Shining Path is by not a mainstream communist movement by any means. For starters, it's rabidly anti-Stalinist and anti-USSR. The article mentions in passing that Guzmán considered the imperialism of the USSR to be on par with that of the United States. Also, to this day the Shining Path considers the Chinese Cultural Revolution to be the model for rebuilding a society along Maoist lines, even thought the Chinese Communist government long ago denounced the Cultural Revolution for its violent excesses. For many years, "Shining Path" therefore has regarded the government of the People's Republic of China as a fraud. The only major communist movement in the world allied with the Shining Path is the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). --Eb.hoop 5:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't conclude that Shorne doesn't know the score. Shorne is aware that the Communist Party of Peru is Maoist (which, incidentally, means that it cannot be anti-Stalinist). The CPP is not the only organisation to denounce the current Chinese government; hell, even many mainstream US newspapers correctly point out that China today is capitalist, not "Maoist" at all. Shorne 13:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is Shining Path's terrorism justified?

I copied a couple paragraphs from above, because I think it is important to show to everybody what Shorne is about.--AAAAA 04:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I (AAAAA) inserted this answer to one of Shorne's comments:
    • I think it is alright to mention that Shining Path is a group of Maoist Revolutionaries. That is a fact. But it is ALSO a fact that they are terrorists. If they had only been "revolutionaries" without using terrorist tactics, then I wouldn't be discussing anything here. But once they crossed the line and started bombing everywhere and everybody indiscriminately, they stamped the TERRORIST adjective unto themselves forever.--AAAAA 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Then, Shorne's responded:
    • "Hacer la revolución no es ofrecer un banquete, ni escribir una obra, ni pintar un cuadro o hacer un bordado; no puede ser tan elegante, tan pausada y fina, tan apacible, amable, cortés, moderada y magnánima. Una revolución es una insurrección, es un acto de violencia mediante el cual una clase derroca a otra. (Mao Zedong, 1927)"Shorne 13:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The above paragraph, for the ones that don't understand spanish, is (according to Shorne) part of Mao Zedong's ideology: "Making a revolution is not offering a banquet, nor writing an essay, nor making a painting or doing embroidery; it cannot be so elegant, paused and fine, so peaceful, amicable, corteous and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, it is an act of violence through which one class overthrows another (Mao Zedong, 1927)". My translation might not be perfect, and I have not confirmed that this is Mao's saying, but what I understand from here is that Shorne is justifying the terrorism of Shining Path because they follow the teachings of Mao (or whatever other reason in his mind). To me, that is SICK.--AAAAA 04:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This article in Wikipedia is not a place to debate what acts of the PCP are, or are not, justified. What you should do, to improve the Shining Path article (if that's the name it will continue to be called), is to list the allegations of their acts and the arguments that they were not justified. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
        • What Mr. Boyer is stating is EXACTLY what I think he should abide by. He's attempting to whitewash a terrorist.--AAAAA 03:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Please address me if you have an issue with me and do not bring into it some mysterious person who has not (to my knowledge) edited the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
            • What are you talking about? Mysterious person?--AAAAA 12:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
              • This "Mr Boyer" to whom you refer. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I have protected the page until more people debate the issue at hand (whitewashing ty Boyer) and decide the appropriate course of action. Admins are welcome.--AAAAA 03:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't believe in anyway that Boyer is whitewashing this issue as you accuse him of. There is certainly a great deal of POV that surrounds articles concernining the Peruvian Communist Party (Sendero Luminos). This certainly has to be fixed. I agree with Boyer's proposal to adjust this article to reflect the proper name of the "Shining Path" movement is indeed Peruvian Communist Party, it has been recognized by the global Maoist and militant Communist movement as such; however it is quite true that it is popularly known as the Sendero Luminos, this still doesn't detract from the fact that it is a name labelled upon the organization. Further on the question of whether or not PCP is terrorist? First I like to say that there is a contrast, the PCP launched an armed conflict with the Peruvian state. It was enough to constitute a whole nation going under martial law and for Fujimori to fight a series of pitch battles in the country side. The material for declaring the PCP to be a terrorist organization is quite weak. I think you would have to clearly show that PCP's tactics were distinct from its military campaign. It is qutie evident that PCP had launched a military arm and it wasn't just a small sect of terrorist cells. Labeling PCP then just a "terrorist" organization is inaccurate, it doesn't reflect in anyway its actual status in Peru.--68.198.123.73 10:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wife

Should mention 1965 marriage to Augusta la Torre. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophic and law tesis

I agree two links to Guzman`s tesis. It´s important studies. These tesis are in UNSA (Arequipa´s public university).

[edit] "facist dictator Alberto Fujimori"

I think that calling Alberto Fujimori" a "facist dictator" doesn't add to this article and is simply untrue. It represents an opinion about Fujimori that is not widely held by either the people of Peru, or by the world at large.

Suggest to remove the words "facist dictator" to de-polarize the article.

--Ramonk 17:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Pseudonym

I don't understand how anyone could object to mentioning Guzman's nom de guerre in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia has all sorts of articles on people who used pseudonyms, and we always write out all the names that the person is known by. I modeled this after the article on Pedro Marin a/k/a Manuel Marulanda a/k/a Tiro Fijo. I can think of no reason why we should depart from convention in this article. --Descendall 21:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/b/i/Talk%7EAbimael_Guzm%C3%A1n_c4fe.html"