Talk:Shining Path

It is dishonest to call the group "Shining Path" when no member of the group has ever called it that and it is just a name journalists have made up for it. --Daniel C. Boyer

Inaccurate perhaps, but dishonest??? What would you call the group? -- Viajero 09:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Partido Comunista de Peru (PCP)" The other, more mainstream Communist Party of Peru calls itself "PCdelP - Patria Roja" to avoid confusion. [This comment was anonymously inserted 9 Nov 2004 and ignores the extensive discussion of this matter that had already taken place below. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:04, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)]

This is far from NPOV chiefly in that it fails to mention the spectacular human rights abuses, disapperances and massacres, of which the Fujimori regime and others were guilty, in the fight against the PCP. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

I added some text to this respect. -- Viajero 09:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This really should be based on more than "Terrorist Group Profiles, Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School". --user:Daniel C. Boyer

It is interesting that the article essentially criticises "Shining Path" for "destruction of the electricity infrastructure" when there is no parallel criticism of the United States for terrorist activity in destroying the electricity infrastructure of Baghdad in 2003. Is this NPOV? --Daniel C. Boyer

You are right. So, roll up your sleeves and get into the fray; add balanced and objective material to 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I guess I'm just a goddamned US corporate terrorist supporter. Trey Stone 10:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lance, two comments:

I completely agree: terrorism is too loaded a term. Another user, Zero000, once said the only place it should be used is in the article Terrorism. You'll probably find it in a few other articles: have a look at Irgun, Stern Gang, Black September, etc. By all means, edit away.

As for the term Shining Path, I can't speak definitively on its origins, but every book I have on Peru in English and Spanish as well as every article I have seen on the organization refers to it as Shining Path, and I think we should as well. As for it being a derogatary term, I am not entirely convinced by that argument [1] (http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/pcp_faq.htm#faq19), if only because there really have been other CPs in Peru (the current one known as Patria Roja and has nothing to to with SL), something that Shining Path obviously didn't want to acknowledge. By referring to SL as the CP of Peru, we do a grave disservice to the others.

-- Viajero 16:23, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Calling them the PCP is just confusing, especially when you're talking in contexts where more than one group calling itself the PCP was active. I'll dig for the exact reference to when the name 'Sendero Luminoso' was created and by whom. DanKeshet

The fact that people/the media/whoever widely label a group as "terrorists" is, in and of itself, noteworthy. Failing to report such a widespread usage is inherently POV. I think nobody will dispute that lots of people/organizations consider the PCP a terrorist group; this article must reflect that. Kwertii 23:25, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the article effectively calls them terrorist three times, with no attribution of who has made that accusation. I happen to think the characterization is appropriate, but the credibility of this term is always dependent on who is using it. -- Jmabel 23:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it to indicate in nicely NPOV fashion that "many people consider them to be a terrorist organization" and that it's on the US Department of State's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. I think both of these statements are pretty neutral, and both are indisputably objectively true. Kwertii 06:23, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reading much of Wikipedia, it seems like all information comes filtered through the US corporate media. This is a group operating internally in Peru, so you'd think the entry would represent that, in some people's minds the US government's opinion of Peru's internal politics is SO important that it deserves to be put in the first paragraph. I moved it to the last one. As far as terrorist, it is one of the Wikipedia: words to avoid, although I see some people like to choose to ignore that just because they can do it, or they love edit wars, or whatever. As far as their name, it seems to me when you are trying to completely skew coverage of something as say the US corporate media does, the icing on the cake is to refuse to even call a group by the name it calls itself. CPK becomes Khmer Rouge, PCP becomes Shining Path, NLF becomes Viet Cong (I guess the pattern is popular fronts are called communist, groups calling themselves communist are called something else). Most groups are called what the group calls itself. As far as confusion about multiple CP's in Peru, that is ridiculous, when people speak of the CP of Peru they are speaking of PCP. That's like saying you can't have an entry for Tom Cruise because some people might think you're talking about Tom Cruise, a plumber from Montana, not the Hollywood actor. -- Lancemurdoch 06:26, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, allow me to assure you that not everything is part of a plot by the big, bad, evil US corporate media to corrupt the gullible masses, nor are all edits edited just because people can do it, just to start edit wars, or just to offend your cat.

This "words to avoid" stuff is nonsense. If you look at that page, you'll see "There are no words that should never be used in wikipedia articles." It goes on to say that certain words are potential flags for NPOV review. One of the central tenets of Wikipedia has always been the lack of any central control over editorial policy - in other words, guidelines like the "Words to avoid" article are just that; guidelines.

That many, many people believe Sendero Luminoso is a terrorist organization is indisputable, and NPOV reporting requires that we note this fact. Notice that the text didn't read "PCP is a terrorist organization", but rather "Many people believe..." Not reporting that many people consider Sendero Luminoso to be terrorists would be POV. NPOV reporting requires that we note the POV of all sides, not just the ones you happen to agree with.

The fact that they consistently make it on to the US Department of State's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations is also extremely noteworthy, since there are only 30 or so organizations in the entire world that are thusly designated. I really can't understand why you're taking this out. Again, just because you don't agree with this designation is not grounds for censoring the fact that it is in fact so designated from the Wikipedia.

Semantic squabbling about the name is really not so important in this case. Groups tend to get stuck with popular names different than their official names sometimes; that's just the way people are. It happens. It's not as though "Shining Path" is particularly derogatory. And "Shining Path" is hardly just a usage of the "US corporate media", a quick search on the BBC website (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsifs&tab=news&q=shining+path&x=0&y=0) reveals that they use the term, too, and they're hardly the US corporate media. A few more seconds on Google turns up this Israeli usage (http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=40), this one fron Uruguay (http://www.cinterfor.org.uy/public/spanish/region/ampro/cinterfor/temas/youth/doc/not/libro27/ii/), this one from the Netherlands (http://www.rnw.nl/informarn/html/act030414_sendero.html), Belgium (http://users.skynet.be/terrorism/html/peru_sl.htm), Brazil (http://noticias.terra.com.br/eleicoes/interna/0,5625,OI69245-EI307,00.html), Germany (http://pagina.de/senderoluminoso), and sites from many other countries around the world which refer to the PCP as "Sendero Luminoso" or "Shining Path". "Sendero Luminoso" returns 42,000 hits on Google; "Shining Path" 453,000; and "Communist Party of Peru" 68,900. It seems that "Shining Path" is, by far, the most common term for the group in question. Kwertii 06:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me that the US gov't designation as terrorist is significant, as would such a designation by other governments. However, I would agree that the article as it stands is very POV. No statement of what the party even ostebsibly stands for, what circumstances in Peru led to the rise of such a radical party, etc. -- Jmabel 07:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You say I am "taking out" and "censoring" that PCP is on some US government list. On the contrary, I moved it to the bottom at least twice, and noted so in my edit comments. PCP is a group that operates internally in Peru, thus what one of the world's hundreds of countries thinks of the group is not really important enough to put on top of the article. Once again, I am moving it to the bottom. It notes that the US government has designated them as terrorists, which is where it belongs. PCP once controlled the majority of land in Peru, something it could not have achieved without significant peasant support. From that perspective, especially considering Peru's lack of democratic government, including under Fujimori, I think it might be fitting to consider what PCP thought of the rival government. Anyhow, I'm moving the all-important fact that one country has this group on a list with dozens of other groups to the bottom where it belongs. -- Lancemurdoch 08:31, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, the United States is something more than 'just another country'. We're not talking about the government of Chad designating them a foreign terrorist organization, here. As you are undoubtedly aware, the US government is the world's sole remanining superpower, and its foreign policy carries a lot of weight in the world, much more so than any other country. I think the fact that the US has designated an organization as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" is hugely significant and worthy of being near the top or even in the opening paragraph of the article, whether one is for or against the organization; but I'll leave it to others to work that one out. Kwertii 23:07, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let's not be obstinate, here. I came up with tons of links to non-US media sources who call the group "Shining Path" and "Sendero Luminoso", so please don't re-insert the "called Sendero Luminoso by the US media" comment, as it is patenlty false. Additionally, please do not remove the comment that "Many people consider the group to be terrorists". This is indisputable and NPOV. It becomes POV if we fail to mention this fact. Kwertii 11:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lancemurdoch, I disagree with your latest edits to this article. First, you wrote above:

As far as confusion about multiple CP's in Peru, that is ridiculous, when people speak of the CP of Peru they are speaking of PCP.

Not true. In Peru today, if you refer to the Communist Party, people will think you are thinking about Patria Roja. I know, I spent six months in Peru in 2002.

You changed this:

The Communist Party of Peru-Shining Path

to this:

The Communist Party of Peru (Partido Comunista del Peru, sometimes referred to in the US media as Sendero Luminoso or Shining Path)

Incorrect. The media in Peru as well as as far as I know that of every other country of the refers to the group as Sendero Luminoso or Shining Path. I've seen you complain about the American-centricity of Wikipedia but this reveals your own US-centric viewpoint. Hence, I am once again reverting PCP to Shining Path.

Perhaps you are right in suggesting it is a term of desparagement but an operative principle in Wikipedia is to call things as they are commonly known. I stood up for another edit you made yesterday in Red Scare in this respect; several other users thought hysteria was too impartial a word to use to describe the Red Scares, but I argued, as you can see on the Talk page of that article, that the expression is an established usage. The issue is not whether you or I or anyone else thinks people were hysterical at the time; it is that this is the way the phenomenon has come to be described. To draw an analogy, you can't simply unilaterally decide that indian is an inappropriate way to refer to indigenous Americans and subsitute it with amerindian or anything else unless the alternative has been established in usage outside of the encyclopedia. Do you follow me?

In the phrase:

where they executed terrorist attacks against the city's infrastructure and residents.

you deleted residents. Why? It is well-known SP assassinated community organizers, the best known of whom as María Elena Moyano, a grass-roots organizer in the squatter barrio Villa El Salvador. I have restored the word civilian. Probably a lot more could be said here about SP's actions in urban areas; this remains one of this article's many shortcomings.

You deleted this text:

During this era, Shining Path used tactics that included conscription of children, forced labor, executions by stoning and throat-slitting (ostensibly to save bullets), destruction of the electricity infrastructure, indiscrimate bombings, and targeted assassinations of political opponents.

Please justify this edit. I will leave it out for now but I will restore it later if you fail to supply a substantial counterargument

You deleted the text:

The government believes a small number operate there in alliance with drug traffickers.

The Ene and Apurimac valleys is one of the chief coca-growing regions in Peru. Peruvian media reports (I can supply references in Spanish) indicate that the remaining cells of SP support themselves in illegal coca cultivation. Please justify this deletion. I have restored this text pending a substantial counterargument.

I am leaving a msg on your Talk page regarding more general issues. -- Viajero 11:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What is the rationale for removing "Many people consider Sendero Luminoso a terrorist group" from the lead paragraph? Many, if not most, people who have heard of them think of them as terrorists, which is not really a common situation for a political group to be in. I did not insert text to the effect that they are terrorists, just that many people think that they are. I've yet to see anyone dispute that many people think of them as terrorists, so why take it out of the article? Kwertii 12:22, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the international view of Shining Path needs to be mentioned. I've added a revised version of these words to the final para of the article plus info on the UK and EU positions (both of which agree that Shining Path is a terrorist group). -- ChrisO 12:38, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph starts, "Internationally, Shining Path is widely regarded as a terrorist group..." Are they not regarded as a terrorist group domestically? What's the trend of public opinion in Peru? Does the current Peruvian government consider them terrorists? Kwertii 13:36, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, as I'm sure you know. :-) I don't have any specific information on public opinion trends, although I suspect that you would probably find that any residual support for them is confined to specific social groups and probably specific regions. The government regards Shining Path as "subversives", which seems to be the usual description for them in the Peruvian media. -- ChrisO 15:06, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Public support for Shining Path is extremely low, virtually non-existent. And yes, the government refers to them as terrorists. -- Viajero 00:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

the term "terrorism"

Originally I posted this to my Talk page in response to a note from Kewertii then realized it really belonged here.

"Terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries emotional baggage and implies a moral judgement. Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously incompatible with NPOV. Moreover, if we label Shining Path or Al Queda or bin Laden "terrorist", whether we do directly or indirectly (see: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms), the case can also be made for labelling our governments and leaders terrorists. For example, because of the mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998, or causing 500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the 1990s by means of sanctions, many millions of people in the world consider the US government and George Bush terrorists, and they could rightfully insist the phrase "many people consider this a terrorist organization" inserted at the top of the article on the United States, the US State Department, or the CIA. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.

I am tempted to say that "terrorist" doesn't belong anywhere but under Terrorism, but that may be unnecessarily restrictive. Still, if it is to be used, I would ask what purpose it serves. In the middle of ChrisO's superb article Binational solution, he included in the narrative that the Israeli government in the 1960s regarded the PLO as a "terrorist organization", and he did so for a purpose; it was an integral part of the historical development. He wasn't simply indirectly including a moral judgement. At the moment, Chris's addition of the US and UK government position in this article is IMO an improvement over simply stating "many people think..."; but Chris, I would still ask you to consider the fact that the assessment of an organization as "terrorist" is hardly just a technical, bureaucratic matter, and that many of the governments which do so have no right to take the high moral ground.

In any case, Shining Path's atrocities are copious, unambiguous, and well-documented. Why can't we simply present the facts as such and avoid all forms of passing moral judgement? -- Viajero 00:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Viajero. The facts of the conduct of Sendero Luminoso speak for themselves. I do think, however, that it it wikipedia-worthy that they are on the US gov't's official list of terrorist organizations. For whatever it is worth, I think it is appropriate (but perhaps not in an encyclopedia article) to label the Senderistas' conduct as "terrorist"; ditto for the US government and its proxies in the war against Nicaragua in the Sandinista era. Yes, the US gov't has engaged in conduct that can reasonably be called terrorist, and in some contexts it can be relevant to report accusations of terrorism against the US government. -- Jmabel 10:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the important point is that it makes a material difference if the UK and EU label Shining Path a terrorist organisation. We could call it terrorist until we're blue in the face, but it would make no real difference to the organisation. On the other hand, if governments label organisations terrorist, it can have massive consequences. Just look at al-Qaeda for an example! -- ChrisO 20:58, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with both the name and content of Wikipedia: Avoid weasel terms. I have added my objections to Wikipedia talk: Avoid weasel terms. Kwertii 08:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If the term "terrorist" is ever used in Wikipedia (outside Terrorism), it should be applied to the Shining Path; it was terroristic through and through, in the strongest sense of the word - namely, the use of violence, both selective and random, in order to spread terror. I, for one, would say that the US has used terrorist tactics on a fairly regular basis, whereas the Shining Path has terrorism as its main activity and as part of its raison d'etre. (I hasten to add that the Peruvian state also used terrorism as a tactic and as a strategy.) Of course, there may be an effective ban on the word "terrorism", in which case there is no reason to break it here. Still, some further detail on Sendero's tactics would be appropriate - the current article does not list any particularly gruesome deeds as having been committed early in the 1980s; in fact, Sendero (and the army...) was quite bloody even then. Hasdrubal 22:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would actively welcome more specifics on Sendero's (appalling) tactics. I would also actively welcome (per remarks below) a long, solid list of governments, NGOs, etc. that have condemned them as terrorists. I still would like to avoid a situation where the narrative voice of this article (or any other) calls them terrorists. My reasons for this are simply a "slippery slope" argument: if Wikipedia takes it upon itself to classify groups as terrorist, rather than merely document who calls them so, we end up having to draw a line on who is and who isn't. Sendero area actually a pretty clearcut case, but what's the conversation going to be like in deciding whether we should apply that adjective to the tactics of the Peruvian military as well? Do we really want to put ourselves through that? I think not. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting dizzy

Why does the title of this article keep changing? -- ChrisO 01:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because, despite an apparent consensus to keep it at "Shining Path", certain individuals strongly disagree. I wish someone would submit it to a poll so we could overtly establish what I am sure is a consensus to keep it here. Instead, periodically someone moves it (typically without discussion, maybe without reviewing this page) and someone else moves it back -- Jmabel 02:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'd bet that far more people know of it as "Shining Path" than the alternative. -- ChrisO 03:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I browsed through some pro-PCP-SL literuature at my local "Revolution Books", a shop run by the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA), which is aligned with PCP-SL. It said that the name Sendero Luminoso (which they didn't use, but explained why everybody else uses it) comes from the name of a pro-PCP-SL student newspaper Sendero Luminoso, which in turn comes from a turn-of-phrase that was very common to one of the leaders of the PCP-SL (not Guzman/Gonzalo, a different one). I don't have the source here so I'm not going to add it to the article, but I believe it and wanted to mention it for the other contributors to this article. DanKeshet 18:47, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds right. I know Revolution Books. It is run by members of the RCP. By the way, while the RCP describe themselves as aligned with the PCP-SL, and have even been known to put out literature implying that the Sendero is their Peruvian branch, as far as I can tell the Sendero has never reciprocated this. (If they have, I'd be interested: that would merit documentation in the article.) -- Jmabel 01:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: the PCP-SL's reciprocation, there are numerous documents on the WWW proclaiming the PCP-SL to be a founding member of the Revolutionary International Movement. For example, [2] (http://www.csrp.org/pcp-rim.htm) and [3] (http://www.csrp.org/rim/rimdec.htm). However, as these are all English-language documents on English-language sites and the RCP (USA) has much more to gain from affiliation with SL than vice-versa, I would like to know more about the SL's participation in RIM before including it. DanKeshet 22:59, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to know how the claim can be verified. There is no PCP headquarters in Lima that we can call up and ask for confirmation of participation in RIM. Shorne 11:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A recent edit by User:ALasBarricadas removed the following, with the comment "This is ridiculous."

I have no solid knowledge of whether the removed information was true, but it is congruent with what I have heard from usually reliable sources. Still, it's an awfully strong statement to be in an article without attribution or references, so I am not restoring it. I think that anyone who cares to restore content to this effect should do some research, indicate his or her sources in the article, etc. That is, they should seek the most credible source of such claims, identify, and quote them rather than state this in the authorial voice of the article. -- Jmabel 05:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've found some appropriately sourced remarks to similar effect and added them to the article, with (what I believe to be) appropriate attribution and links. I am aware that this in a controversial matter, and have said so in my added text. I would actively welcome appropriately sourced statements from a credible source that states the contrary opinion, but I will firmly defend keeping the content I have added, or comparable content, in the article. -- Jmabel 01:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Here (http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/index.php)]'s the Truth Commission's report (in Spanish only, unfortunately), if anyone fancies taking a look. –Hajor 03:57, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recently added link: dubious description

A link, [4] (http://www.bandera-roja.com/peru.htm) was added with the description "Peruvian web page of "Bandera Roja", the Communist party of Spain, registered by Edith Pena Dominguez, in Leon, Spain." The link appears relevant, but the description was actively misleading. I'll changed it to something more accurate. Yes, the home page of that site (http://www.bandera-roja.com/) claims it to be the "Organo Central del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de España", but it clearly is not. It's the site of some Maoist party, but almost anyone referring to "the Communist party of Spain" means the PCE, whose website is at http://www.pce.es/. I'm not sure if this was an active attempt to mislead, an innocent confusion, or what. -- Jmabel 01:03, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Honest mistake. Your correction is perfect.--AAAAA 01:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorists or not

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 12:06, 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)
  - Abimael Guzman's group IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST PARTY of PERU, although they would like to think they are.--AAAAA 03:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Agreed, I think it is confusing to call them "Communist Party of Peru" without parenthetically adding "Sendero Luminoso" or some equivalent. We've been through this before around the name of the article and agreed that except where context is utterly clear, "Communist Party of Peru" is actively misleading, because the mainstream ex-Comintern Peruvian communists are a better-known group that uses exactly that name. "Official" is always tricky -- official by whom? -- but in this case, common usage both in English and Spanish is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
      - As far as I know, the CPP does not consider itself "official" in any way or even aspire to that status. What is official, however, is its name: Partido Comunista del Perú, not Sendero Luminoso. Using the latter taints the article with a bias towards the US and the Peruvian comprador régime, which imposed that name. If there's a potential for confusion, a parenthetical note will suffice to resolve it. Shorne 11:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - According to the U.S. DOD, Shining Path IS a terrorist organization. [See http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/12389.htm U.S. DOD Foreign Terrorist Organizations, April 22, 2004]. Why are you trying to "defend" these terrorists?--AAAAA 12:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - It is accurate to say that the U.S. DOD calls the Shining Path terrorist, and that fact belongs in the article. However, the narrative voice of the article generally should avoid using that word. I happen to think the Sendero are scum, but one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:18, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
      - Even the fact that the US DOD calls the CPP terrorist does not deserve excessive emphasis. The world doesn't revolve around the US. Shorne 11:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        As I understand it, we pretty much always list US and EU official designations as "terrorist". If there are other such official lists by governments or intergovernmental organizations, those should be used, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba maintains one, and I bet it's pretty different from the US one, and it would be a great addition. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I continue to object to the inclusion of "Sendero is currently listed as one of the U.S. Department of State's 37 "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations".[5] (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/12389.htm)" in the lead section of the article. Yes, we should mention it. No, it does not belong in the lead. Can we get a quick poll of how others feel on this? There may be a pretty clear consensus, but there may not. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Quick poll

U.S. Department of State designation as "terrorists"

Should be in the Lead
- Definitely in the Lead. This is a TERRORIST group, no matter how many times some leftist leaning wikipedians object to that FACT. Just make a quick poll in Peru, and ask PERUVIANS what they think of Shining Path --AAAAA 05:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In the lead. The wording clearly states that it is so in the opinion of the US State Department. - Robert the Bruce 13:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely in the lead. They're terrorists, why should we try to pretend that they aren't? Rick K 06:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- If the State Dept's designation is not included in the lead, then a mention that they are a group that has committed acts of terror should be suggested. —Mike 06:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Should be in article, but not in lead
- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- DanKeshet 19:51, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) Just not the most important thing about the group.
- Rmhermen 23:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) Now if we could find what the Peruvian government considers them, that would be lead material.
  - I can ASSURE you the Peruvian Government considers them TERRORISTS. Feel free to contact the Ministry of the Presidency of Peru (or the Peruvian Congress, if you wish).--AAAAA 00:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - Certainly AAAAA is right on this, but an official statement would be a good thing to link to. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- the state department in the lead is just US centredness. UN and / or Peruvian Government are more relevant sources; human rights abuses reported by Amnesty International also carry more weight. Mozzerati 22:13, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
- --Soman 07:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Of course the Shining Path is a terrorist group - I just object to the prominence given to a report made by a non-neutral country. A designation of

"terrorist" made by Amnesty International would be best (if Amnesty International does assign such labels). Hasdrubal 22:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should not be in article at all

Comments

Comment from AAAAA to Dan Keshet: You should ask Peruvians what's the first word they think about when Shining Path is mentioned...

Is the answer: "United States Department of State"? The poll is asking is about whether the article is better (that is: more accurate, comprehensive, and NPOV) by including a sentence about the U.S. State Department's views on SL in the lead. The poll is not asking whether we think SL is a terrorist group, whether we approve of SL, or whether we think most people in Peru think they are a terrorist group.

I think a statement like "Shining Path was declared an illegal organization by the government of Peru on xxx, 19xx" would be much better than the US Dept. of State info. DanKeshet 01:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have clear consensus that it belongs in the article, and roughly even division on whether it belongs in the lead. Most of the objections to it being in the lead are to the US-centeredness of that particular attribution. Is there a similar statement from the UN? And would that satisfy those who want it in the lead? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:15, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorist" in the lead

DoD considers Shining Path a terrorist group, which the article says in the appropriate place, but per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead, unqualified even by who used the term. I'm not sure who may have requested protection on this matter; I didn't. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

How about mentioning other groups, in addition to the DoD, that consider Shining Path a terrorist group? — J3ff 09:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this article still protected? There has been no discussion. I've been wanting for weeks to correct the Spanish name of the party in the introduction and make other improvements to this article. Shorne 11:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that sums up well why it is still protected: you are considering as a "correction" something that several of us consider to be the opposite. The lead is very clear about what the party calls itself. It is also clear (to me at least) that this is not what it is commonly called in English and that, in fact, that name in English commonly refers to a different group. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Um, do you even know what the hell you're talking about? The current article says that the Spanish name of the party is "Partido Comunista de Peru"; in fact, it is "Partido Comunista del Perú". Or are Spanish spelling and grammar now something decided by the United States Department of "Defense"? Shorne 22:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, you are correct about the spelling. It should be "Partido Comunista del Perú". That correction is acceptable. What I am worried about is your "other improvements" you talk about above...--AAAAA 03:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with the spelling change. If all you want to do is add the accent mark, no problem at all, but if you want to resume the fight over where the article resides, etc. that's another story. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Official full name of Shining Path

shows up from googling, that the full, official name of the PCP is: Partido Comunista del Peru en el Sendero Luminoso de Jose Carlos Mariategui (Communist Party of Peru on the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui)

This is in the URL that links to the frozen article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Comunista_del_Peru_en_el_Sendero_Luminoso_de_Jose_Carlos_Mariategui

Not in text?User:139.62.229.249

I think you are INCORRECT.
- In the About.com article by the US State Department, Office of Counterterrorism (http://globalization.about.com/blterr26.htm), you can read as a title: Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) a.k.a. Partido Comunista del Peru en el Sendero Luminoso de Jose Carlos Mariategui (Communist Party of Peru on the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui), Partido Comunista del Peru (Communist Party of Peru), PCP, Socorro Popular del Peru (People's Aid of Peru), SPP, Ejercito Guerrillero Popular (People's Guerrilla Army), EGP, Ejercito Popular de Liberacion (People's Liberation Army), EPL. So, as you can see, Sendero has been called many names. Some of them are names that they like to use (PCP, Partido Comunista del Peru). Some have been put by the media or by the people. But that doesn't mean they are called that.--AAAAA 12:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- User:139.62.229.249 states that "the full, official name of the PCP". That is NOT CORRECT. PCP is an acronym for "Partido Comunista del Peru". And once again, Shining Path is NOT the PCP. They like to be called like that but they are NOT the PCP. Please read the article Communist Party of Peru. If tomorrow User:139.62.229.249 you decide to be called Napoleon Bonaparte, and you like to be called Napoleon Bonaparte, it DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE Napoleon Bonaparte. Some users here want to make us believe Shining Path IS the PCP. It is NOT. --AAAAA 12:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relying on US State Department has its limitations. SPP/EGP/ELP are names of fronts of PCdelP, not different names of the party itself. --Soman 22:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent move of article

Consider this a strong objection to the recent move of the article to Communist Party of Peru (Shining Path). I think simply Shining Path is the most common English-language name and that is where the article should be. I'm not going to fight about it, but I'm also not going to clean up after you: would the person who made the move please at least have the decency to clean up all the redirect pages, which now result in a bunch of double-redirects? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jeez, lighten up. Concerning the name of the article, the only resonable is to call an organization by the name it itself uses. As to the (Shining Path) brackets, it would differentiate it from other parties in Peru using similar names. As per who's the "real" PCP, this group is actually the only one called "Partido Comunista del Peru". There is the original party, Partido Comunista Peruano, often called PCP (Unidad). PCdelP-Patria Roja is another group, which also originates from PCP-Bandera Roja. --Soman 20:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just reverted the move. I STRONGLY OPPOSE IT. I will rever as many times as necessary. Once again, I will use an analogy: If tomorrow somebody named John Smith (for example) that he likes to be called Napoleon Bonaparte, but 99% of whoever knows that person knows him as John Smith, HE IS STILL JOHN SMITH. The same applies to Shining Path. 99.9% of the Peruvian populatino and probably of the rest of the world that has any idea of its existence know this terrorist group as Shining Path. If tomorrow some new crazy leader of this group decides to call his group "Nazi Party of Peru" (for example), should we call them that? NO. They still are SHINING PATH.--AAAAA 13:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it still doesn't make sense. Sendero Luminoso was a name given to PCdelP in order to defame it. The continous usage of the term is smearing, and thus naming the article as such is POV. As per organization names organizations have the names which they themselves approve of. If an organization takes a name which is also used by another organization, if a group suddenly decides to call itself the "Catholic Church", then some sort of brackets should be put after the name to differentiate it from teh organization originally holding that name. --Soman

I do not agree with Soman. Shining Path or Sendero Luminoso is NOT AT ALL smearing. Something shining is something bright, something with light, something good. A Path is a road, or something like that. I don't see ANYTHING "smearing" in the name. The problem here lies in that Shining Path is trying to use the name of the "Communist Party of Peru", and I believe THEY DO NOT REPRESENT IT. Although nobody really knows who is the Communist Party of Peru or who has the right to use that name, it would be WHITEWASHING to name the TERRORIST GROUP COMMONLY KNOWN as Shining Path, as "the Communist Party of Peru". It seems Soman is not even reading what I write. But using what he wrote, I don't think that a Muslim group (as an example) can tomorrow take the name of "Catholic Church - New church" (as an example) and be called that. They would still be a mustlim group.--AAAAA 05:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should not that this discussion isn't new to Wikipedia. There is a guide for handling these situations: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). There is a caveat in there for avoiding names that are offensive to large groups of people. Whether or not to apply that here is clearly up for interpretation. I think the recent move was fine, so long as it doesn't drop the "Shining Path" in parentheses. DanKeshet 23:05, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Larouchie document

AAAAA insists on including Shining Path: core of the RIM project (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2246_sendero.html), describing it as "very factual". This document comes from Executive Intelligence Review, a journal closely affiliated with Lyndon Larouche; in fact the linked document is hosted on http://www.larouchepub.com. The document does contain much factual information. It may even be mostly accurate. The problem with even apparently good documents from the Larouche people is that they often have deliberately misleading statements embedded in them. I haven't studied the document closely, but the list of "allies" of the senderistas is clearly nothing better than ludicrous slander. It may be that this is the only disinformation in the document, but it also casts doubt on the accuracy of the rest.

Putative Shining Path Allies:

National Human Rights Coordinator. See [6] (http://www.cverdad.org.pe); much of the site is in English.
Institute of Popular Pedagogy; presumably Instituto de Pedagogia Popular. See: Their grant from the Kellogg Foundation (http://www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Grants/GrantDetail.aspx?ID=P0094554) and this document from the World Bank (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/07/06/000094946_01062604121125/Rendered/INDEX/multi0page.txt), thanking them for their participation in a project. Of course, the Larouchies consider the World Bank to be part of some grand conspiracy involving the Rothschilds and the British Royal Family, so maybe they just think the Shining Path are part of that same conspiracy.
Alpha and Omega cult: I'm not sure who this is. I'm guessing that is these weirdos (http://orbita.starmedia.com/~alfayomegaweb/alfayomega/main.htm). I suspect the charge borders on random. They are a UFO doomsday cult.

I could go on, but I really don't want to spend my whole day on this. AAAAA, do you still think this is a "very factual" document?-- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Point noted. I agree with you. I don't like those LaRouche Nazis either. What I will do, a little at a time, is extract bits of information, confirm them, and include them in the article after a rewrite (example: Terrorist acts). It would be nice if you could help.--AAAAA 12:36, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) I just removed this link *Executive Intelligence Review article in the November 17, 1995 issue (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2246_sendero.html) from the main article, as agreed.--AAAAA 12:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, be wary of any information from a Larouche document unless it is reliably and independently sourced. As you can see from the examples above about National Human Rights Coordinator and Institute of Popular Pedagogy, they often contain misinformation and disinformation of varying degrees of subtlety. My issue with them as a source isn't so much my distance from their politics as their distance from any standards of intellectual honesty. And, sorry, but I'm not particularly interested in starting from a compromised, POV, and intellectually dishonest document as a starting point for research. If you want to do so, it's your prerogative, but I would literally be more cautious with a Larouche document than with something mentioned to me by a stranger on the street. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

"Shining Path" is just about the worst name that you can give this group. Sendero Luminoso doesn't even translate into Shining Path in English, and the group does not use that name at all. The name Shining Path comes from a student-run newspaper of a front group for the PCP (I believe it might have been the MOTC) that had the tagline "en el Sendero Luminoso de Jose Carlos Mariategui" (On the Luminous Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui) If you don't believe me, look it up in Gorritti's book, which is the by far the best book on the PCP ever published in Peru, and is certainly not pro-PCP. Calling the PCP "Sendero Luminoso" is like calling Adolf Ochs "All the News that's Fit to Print."

As for any cofusion that might arise from the existance of other Peruvian communist parties, the solution is simple -- just add "Not to be confused with the PCdelP - Patria Roja or the Partido Comunista Peruano." Better yet, start articles on those two groups.

Just because the PCP killed a whole hell of a lot of people doesn't mean we have to throw all rational thought out the window. User:147.9.151.45

Sometimes the names of such things are not ideal or even strictly correct, but they are sanctified by usage. Our primary duty at Wikipedia is to describe the world around us, not dicatate how it should be described. In English, this group is known as Shining Path and that is the term we should use to refer to them. -- Viajero 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That it is used often doesn't make it any less POV. "Partial-Birth Abortion" is used all the time, but it is an obvious POV problem to call it that. Descendall

Perhaps a stupid thing to complain about, but I'm not so sure that the picture of a black hammer and sickle with the letters PCP really consitutes the "flag" of the PCP. In an interview with Artemio that aired on Peruvian TV, he stood in front of a flag that looked like a flag of the USSR: red with a small yellow hammer and sickle in the upper left corner. I believe that it lacked the star that was on the flag of the USSR, however. PCP also has used crudely made red flags with big yellow hammer and sickle designs in the center. An example of this can be seen on a somewhat famous picture of Edith Lagos' funeral, which is at (added anonymously 17 Feb 2005)

"Terrorist"

"Shining path" is the term they have been given in Peru, that's how they are recognized, It's not just a journalists made up name. I would like to say that its inconceivable for me that a group that has killed over 30,000 inocent people, and has also used torture, rape and kidnapping as weapons for inflicting fear in Peru for 20 years is not considered a terrorist group. I'm peruvian and I remember the day Abimael Guzamn was captured as one of the happiest of my live. (anonymous 18 March 2005)

Funny, the Peruvian State has "has killed over 30,000 inocent people, and has also used torture, rape and kidnapping as weapons for inflicting fear in Peru," and they've been at it for a lot longer than 20 years. I don't see you running over to Peru to call it a terrorist state in the lead paragraph. Descendall

Again, the objection is not to indicating that they are widely characterized as "terrorist", and in a non-encyclopedic I'd call them that myself. The issue is one that goes beyond a particular case. We simply do not call organizations "terrorist" in the lead paragraph of an article. It is an inherently POV term. Instead, we cite (as we do in this article) various citable sources that call them that. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Shining Path

"Shining Path" is a short form of the name they originally chose for themselves; it is also how everybody else calls them. Of course they would like to erase the PCP (vanilla) and PCP - Patria Roja (fairly non-violent maoist) from human consciousness, but that doesn't mean we all have a moral obligation to play ball. Hasdrubal 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this point can't be made often enough. One of the underlying principles of Wikipedia is to refer to things as they are commonly known, even though it may at given times conflict with some group's doctrinal purity. -- Viajero 23:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Viajero.--AAAAA 19:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And so do I (as should be perfectly clear). Hasdrubal 19:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even though that is wikipedia policy, I think it's stupid in some cases. Certain topics have frequently-refered to POV names. Calling the PCP "Shining Path" is equivilant to calling Late-Term D&C "Partial-Birth Abortion" and Israel "Occupied Palestine." Descendall (March 29, 2005)

First example: possibly. Second example: no. Why? Because the former is (regrettably) now common English language usage. The latter is not. I think this case, though, is pretty clear cut: there is more that one PCP, and this one is not only most widely known in English as the "Shining Path", it's most widely known in Spanish as the "Sendero Luminoso". -- Jmabel | Talk 23:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. This isn't the place to argue it, but I just think that it's a good example of an organization getting stuck with a name that it never wanted. "Shining Path" is a POV problem because anyone who calls it "Shining Path" is against it. Of course, very few people are actually pro-PCP. But those who are would never call it Sendero Luminoso. I also think that it is factually incorrect to say that Shining Path is "a short form of the name they originally chose for themselves." I believe that "En el Sendero Luminoso de Jose Carlos Mariategui" was the tagline on a student paper published by a front group of PCP (Possibly MOTC, but I forget). It was never intended as a name. I also don't think that it should count against PCP that there are other groups going by similar names. That's what disambiguation pages are for. And lets face it: Communist groups are so secretarian that there are always a million groups going by the same or similar names. How many parties claim to be the true inheritors of Maoist thought? I can name three just in the United States. One last point: I'm not even sure that there are any other PCPs in Peru anymore. Patria Roja calls itself PCdelP - Patria Roja, Bandera Roja has either dissapeared or merged with the PCP, and I think that the MNI has absorbed most of the other Marxist parties in Peru.Descendall

I forgot one thing I wanted to say: The group is generally referred to as "the Shining Path," not just "Shining Path." Flipping through my books on the subject, I see that while most refer to the group as "Sendero" (even English-language books), Gorriti's book translated into English always calls it "the Shining Path." Kirk's book does the same, but this is no surprise as Kirk translated Gorriti. It seems very awkward to not have the "the" in front of "Shining Path."Descendall

Descendall wrote:

"Shining Path" is a POV problem because anyone who calls it "Shining Path" is against it.

With all respects, I find this convoluted reasoning. Are you asserting that the phrase "sendero luminoso" is categorally perjorative? It has in fact a fine radical pedigree, having been coined by Mariátegui himself. Or are you are arguing that it trivializes the group's revolutionary ideology, paints them more as a gang than a political party? If so, you may have a point, but it still leaves us with the problem that if we were to consistently (correctly?) refer to SL as the PCP, no one, outside of a few partisans in Peru, would know to what we are referring. -- Viajero 10:49, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's perjorative because the people that it is aimed at take offense at it. PCP documents almost always refer to the organiztion as "The PCP, which the bourgeoisie media slanders as 'The Shining Path,'" or something to that effect. Generally if people don't like it when you call them something, it's perjorative to do so and you should stop(The whole Nigger/Nigra/Negriod/Colored/Negro/Afro-American/African American effect). Certainly no supporters of the PCP call the group "The Shining Path." The only reason that the name Sendero stuck is because virtually everyone with a voice -- the media, the government, academia -- are solidly against the PCP, and for that reason use the pajoritive name. This is not to suggest that the PCP is somehow getting a raw deal. Truth be told I think they're a bunch of nutcases. However, I don't think it's right to simply say, if effect, "well, the New York Times and Gustavo Gorriti call them the Shining Path, so I guess that's their name." As to why the PCP objects so strongly to being called the Shining Path, my guess is that you are exactly right -- it reduces their status as the vanguard revolutionary movement in Peru to a bunch of "deliquents." In any event, I'm sure that I'm not going to win anyone over with my argument. So what do you think about changing it to "the Shining Path?" [Descendall 30 March 2005]

Please remember to sign and datestamp your posts (4x tilde), otherwise it gets difficult to determine who said what.
The issue is not so much that the "bourgeoisie media" uses the term but that there is no real alternative in circulation. In any case, as it now stands, we have the following text: (the group refers to itself as the Communist Party of Peru). If you think that this should be strengthened in any way, feel free to make some suggestions here.
Not that it is the final arbiter of everything, but Google does has some 38k hits for "the shining path" (but 116k minus "the"), indicating you may have a point. However, I suggest the following: leave the article as it is currently named (in general, shorter is better and most search engines ignore "the" anyway) and change Shining Path to The Shining Path at the top of the article. -- Viajero 13:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Abimael Guzmán

This is just me thinking out loud, and I apologize for writing so much on this article since I'm only a newbie, but there is a recent picture of Guzmán on Abimael Guzmán, which I assume was taken during the more recent hearings at the Callao Naval Base. Should that picture replace the current "hamburgerler," as someone else called it, picture? The hamburgerler picture has the definate drawbacks of being fuzzy and having been taken during what was essentially a staged media spectical. However, it is the iconic picture of Guzmán that everyone thinks of when they hear his name. Descendall 08:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Descendall. The "hamburgerler" picture should be the one on top.--AAAAA 12:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion in this matter. However, AAAAA, you are saying you "agree" with Descendall, who was merely presenting two options and not taking a stand one way or another. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Why not use both? The prison photo can stay, as long as it the text makes clear that it was part of a "staged media spectacle" as you put it. -- Viajero 11:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - What I am saying is that the MAIN picture in the page of Guzman should be the one that everybody knows, even with the fact that it was a "staged media spectacle"--AAAAA 19:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is dishonest to call the group "Shining Path" when no member of the group has ever called it that and it is just a name journalists have made up for it. --Daniel C. Boyer

Inaccurate perhaps, but dishonest??? What would you call the group? -- Viajero 09:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I added some text to this respect. -- Viajero 09:07 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This really should be based on more than "Terrorist Group Profiles, Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School". --user:Daniel C. Boyer

You are right. So, roll up your sleeves and get into the fray; add balanced and objective material to 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I guess I'm just a goddamned US corporate terrorist supporter. Trey Stone 10:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lance, two comments:

I completely agree: terrorism is too loaded a term. Another user, Zero000, once said the only place it should be used is in the article Terrorism. You'll probably find it in a few other articles: have a look at Irgun, Stern Gang, Black September, etc. By all means, edit away.

As for the term Shining Path, I can't speak definitively on its origins, but every book I have on Peru in English and Spanish as well as every article I have seen on the organization refers to it as Shining Path, and I think we should as well. As for it being a derogatary term, I am not entirely convinced by that argument [7] (http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/pcp_faq.htm#faq19), if only because there really have been other CPs in Peru (the current one known as Patria Roja and has nothing to to with SL), something that Shining Path obviously didn't want to acknowledge. By referring to SL as the CP of Peru, we do a grave disservice to the others.

-- Viajero 16:23, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lancemurdoch, I disagree with your latest edits to this article. First, you wrote above:

As far as confusion about multiple CP's in Peru, that is ridiculous, when people speak of the CP of Peru they are speaking of PCP.

Not true. In Peru today, if you refer to the Communist Party, people will think you are thinking about Patria Roja. I know, I spent six months in Peru in 2002.

You changed this:

The Communist Party of Peru-Shining Path

to this:

The Communist Party of Peru (Partido Comunista del Peru, sometimes referred to in the US media as Sendero Luminoso or Shining Path)

In the phrase:

where they executed terrorist attacks against the city's infrastructure and residents.

You deleted this text:

Please justify this edit. I will leave it out for now but I will restore it later if you fail to supply a substantial counterargument

You deleted the text:

The government believes a small number operate there in alliance with drug traffickers.

I am leaving a msg on your Talk page regarding more general issues. -- Viajero 11:59, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Public support for Shining Path is extremely low, virtually non-existent. And yes, the government refers to them as terrorists. -- Viajero 00:17, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

the term "terrorism"

Originally I posted this to my Talk page in response to a note from Kewertii then realized it really belonged here.

I disagree with both the name and content of Wikipedia: Avoid weasel terms. I have added my objections to Wikipedia talk: Avoid weasel terms. Kwertii 08:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting dizzy

Why does the title of this article keep changing? -- ChrisO 01:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'd bet that far more people know of it as "Shining Path" than the alternative. -- ChrisO 03:03, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re: the PCP-SL's reciprocation, there are numerous documents on the WWW proclaiming the PCP-SL to be a founding member of the Revolutionary International Movement. For example, [8] (http://www.csrp.org/pcp-rim.htm) and [9] (http://www.csrp.org/rim/rimdec.htm). However, as these are all English-language documents on English-language sites and the RCP (USA) has much more to gain from affiliation with SL than vice-versa, I would like to know more about the SL's participation in RIM before including it. DanKeshet 22:59, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to know how the claim can be verified. There is no PCP headquarters in Lima that we can call up and ask for confirmation of participation in RIM. Shorne 11:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A recent edit by User:ALasBarricadas removed the following, with the comment "This is ridiculous."

Here (http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/index.php)]'s the Truth Commission's report (in Spanish only, unfortunately), if anyone fancies taking a look. –Hajor 03:57, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recently added link: dubious description

A link, [10] (http://www.bandera-roja.com/peru.htm) was added with the description "Peruvian web page of "Bandera Roja", the Communist party of Spain, registered by Edith Pena Dominguez, in Leon, Spain." The link appears relevant, but the description was actively misleading. I'll changed it to something more accurate. Yes, the home page of that site (http://www.bandera-roja.com/) claims it to be the "Organo Central del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de España", but it clearly is not. It's the site of some Maoist party, but almost anyone referring to "the Communist party of Spain" means the PCE, whose website is at http://www.pce.es/. I'm not sure if this was an active attempt to mislead, an innocent confusion, or what. -- Jmabel 01:03, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Honest mistake. Your correction is perfect.--AAAAA 01:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorists or not

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 12:06, 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)
  - Abimael Guzman's group IS NOT THE OFFICIAL COMMUNIST PARTY of PERU, although they would like to think they are.--AAAAA 03:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - Agreed, I think it is confusing to call them "Communist Party of Peru" without parenthetically adding "Sendero Luminoso" or some equivalent. We've been through this before around the name of the article and agreed that except where context is utterly clear, "Communist Party of Peru" is actively misleading, because the mainstream ex-Comintern Peruvian communists are a better-known group that uses exactly that name. "Official" is always tricky -- official by whom? -- but in this case, common usage both in English and Spanish is clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
      - As far as I know, the CPP does not consider itself "official" in any way or even aspire to that status. What is official, however, is its name: Partido Comunista del Perú, not Sendero Luminoso. Using the latter taints the article with a bias towards the US and the Peruvian comprador régime, which imposed that name. If there's a potential for confusion, a parenthetical note will suffice to resolve it. Shorne 11:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - According to the U.S. DOD, Shining Path IS a terrorist organization. [See http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/12389.htm U.S. DOD Foreign Terrorist Organizations, April 22, 2004]. Why are you trying to "defend" these terrorists?--AAAAA 12:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    - It is accurate to say that the U.S. DOD calls the Shining Path terrorist, and that fact belongs in the article. However, the narrative voice of the article generally should avoid using that word. I happen to think the Sendero are scum, but one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:18, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
      - Even the fact that the US DOD calls the CPP terrorist does not deserve excessive emphasis. The world doesn't revolve around the US. Shorne 11:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        As I understand it, we pretty much always list US and EU official designations as "terrorist". If there are other such official lists by governments or intergovernmental organizations, those should be used, too. I wouldn't be surprised if Cuba maintains one, and I bet it's pretty different from the US one, and it would be a great addition. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I continue to object to the inclusion of "Sendero is currently listed as one of the U.S. Department of State's 37 "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations".[11] (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/2004/12389.htm)" in the lead section of the article. Yes, we should mention it. No, it does not belong in the lead. Can we get a quick poll of how others feel on this? There may be a pretty clear consensus, but there may not. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Quick poll

U.S. Department of State designation as "terrorists"

Should be in the Lead
- Definitely in the Lead. This is a TERRORIST group, no matter how many times some leftist leaning wikipedians object to that FACT. Just make a quick poll in Peru, and ask PERUVIANS what they think of Shining Path --AAAAA 05:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- In the lead. The wording clearly states that it is so in the opinion of the US State Department. - Robert the Bruce 13:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely in the lead. They're terrorists, why should we try to pretend that they aren't? Rick K 06:39, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- If the State Dept's designation is not included in the lead, then a mention that they are a group that has committed acts of terror should be suggested. —Mike 06:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Should be in article, but not in lead
- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- DanKeshet 19:51, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) Just not the most important thing about the group.
- Rmhermen 23:23, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) Now if we could find what the Peruvian government considers them, that would be lead material.
  - I can ASSURE you the Peruvian Government considers them TERRORISTS. Feel free to contact the Ministry of the Presidency of Peru (or the Peruvian Congress, if you wish).--AAAAA 00:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - Certainly AAAAA is right on this, but an official statement would be a good thing to link to. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:48, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 06:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- the state department in the lead is just US centredness. UN and / or Peruvian Government are more relevant sources; human rights abuses reported by Amnesty International also carry more weight. Mozzerati 22:13, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
- --Soman 07:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Of course the Shining Path is a terrorist group - I just object to the prominence given to a report made by a non-neutral country. A designation of

"terrorist" made by Amnesty International would be best (if Amnesty International does assign such labels). Hasdrubal 22:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should not be in article at all

Comments

Comment from AAAAA to Dan Keshet: You should ask Peruvians what's the first word they think about when Shining Path is mentioned...

"Terrorist" in the lead

How about mentioning other groups, in addition to the DoD, that consider Shining Path a terrorist group? — J3ff 09:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Official full name of Shining Path

This is in the URL that links to the frozen article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partido_Comunista_del_Peru_en_el_Sendero_Luminoso_de_Jose_Carlos_Mariategui

Not in text?User:139.62.229.249

I think you are INCORRECT.
- In the About.com article by the US State Department, Office of Counterterrorism (http://globalization.about.com/blterr26.htm), you can read as a title: Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL) a.k.a. Partido Comunista del Peru en el Sendero Luminoso de Jose Carlos Mariategui (Communist Party of Peru on the Shining Path of Jose Carlos Mariategui), Partido Comunista del Peru (Communist Party of Peru), PCP, Socorro Popular del Peru (People's Aid of Peru), SPP, Ejercito Guerrillero Popular (People's Guerrilla Army), EGP, Ejercito Popular de Liberacion (People's Liberation Army), EPL. So, as you can see, Sendero has been called many names. Some of them are names that they like to use (PCP, Partido Comunista del Peru). Some have been put by the media or by the people. But that doesn't mean they are called that.--AAAAA 12:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- User:139.62.229.249 states that "the full, official name of the PCP". That is NOT CORRECT. PCP is an acronym for "Partido Comunista del Peru". And once again, Shining Path is NOT the PCP. They like to be called like that but they are NOT the PCP. Please read the article Communist Party of Peru. If tomorrow User:139.62.229.249 you decide to be called Napoleon Bonaparte, and you like to be called Napoleon Bonaparte, it DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE Napoleon Bonaparte. Some users here want to make us believe Shining Path IS the PCP. It is NOT. --AAAAA 12:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relying on US State Department has its limitations. SPP/EGP/ELP are names of fronts of PCdelP, not different names of the party itself. --Soman 22:30, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recent move of article

I just reverted the move. I STRONGLY OPPOSE IT. I will rever as many times as necessary. Once again, I will use an analogy: If tomorrow somebody named John Smith (for example) that he likes to be called Napoleon Bonaparte, but 99% of whoever knows that person knows him as John Smith, HE IS STILL JOHN SMITH. The same applies to Shining Path. 99.9% of the Peruvian populatino and probably of the rest of the world that has any idea of its existence know this terrorist group as Shining Path. If tomorrow some new crazy leader of this group decides to call his group "Nazi Party of Peru" (for example), should we call them that? NO. They still are SHINING PATH.--AAAAA 13:39, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Larouchie document

Putative Shining Path Allies:

National Human Rights Coordinator. See [12] (http://www.cverdad.org.pe); much of the site is in English.
Institute of Popular Pedagogy; presumably Instituto de Pedagogia Popular. See: Their grant from the Kellogg Foundation (http://www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Grants/GrantDetail.aspx?ID=P0094554) and this document from the World Bank (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2001/07/06/000094946_01062604121125/Rendered/INDEX/multi0page.txt), thanking them for their participation in a project. Of course, the Larouchies consider the World Bank to be part of some grand conspiracy involving the Rothschilds and the British Royal Family, so maybe they just think the Shining Path are part of that same conspiracy.
Alpha and Omega cult: I'm not sure who this is. I'm guessing that is these weirdos (http://orbita.starmedia.com/~alfayomegaweb/alfayomega/main.htm). I suspect the charge borders on random. They are a UFO doomsday cult.

I could go on, but I really don't want to spend my whole day on this. AAAAA, do you still think this is a "very factual" document?-- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Just because the PCP killed a whole hell of a lot of people doesn't mean we have to throw all rational thought out the window. User:147.9.151.45

That it is used often doesn't make it any less POV. "Partial-Birth Abortion" is used all the time, but it is an obvious POV problem to call it that. Descendall

"Terrorist"

Shining Path

I agree with Viajero.--AAAAA 19:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And so do I (as should be perfectly clear). Hasdrubal 19:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Descendall wrote:

"Shining Path" is a POV problem because anyone who calls it "Shining Path" is against it.

Please remember to sign and datestamp your posts (4x tilde), otherwise it gets difficult to determine who said what.
The issue is not so much that the "bourgeoisie media" uses the term but that there is no real alternative in circulation. In any case, as it now stands, we have the following text: (the group refers to itself as the Communist Party of Peru). If you think that this should be strengthened in any way, feel free to make some suggestions here.
Not that it is the final arbiter of everything, but Google does has some 38k hits for "the shining path" (but 116k minus "the"), indicating you may have a point. However, I suggest the following: leave the article as it is currently named (in general, shorter is better and most search engines ignore "the" anyway) and change Shining Path to The Shining Path at the top of the article. -- Viajero 13:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Abimael Guzmán

I agree with Descendall. The "hamburgerler" picture should be the one on top.--AAAAA 12:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no strong opinion in this matter. However, AAAAA, you are saying you "agree" with Descendall, who was merely presenting two options and not taking a stand one way or another. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Why not use both? The prison photo can stay, as long as it the text makes clear that it was part of a "staged media spectacle" as you put it. -- Viajero 11:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - What I am saying is that the MAIN picture in the page of Guzman should be the one that everybody knows, even with the fact that it was a "staged media spectacle"--AAAAA 19:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Terrorist" redux

Recent change by AAAAA, italicized in the following quote: "Its stated goal is to replace Peruvian bourgeois institutions with a communist peasant revolutionary regime, through any means possible, including terrorist tactics." While I personally agree that they use terrorist tactics, you are claiming here that this is a stated goal. If you have a citation of an overt endorsement of terrorism by the party, I would welcome it. It would certainly simplify the issue of whether they are terrorist. However, unless you have such a citation, this claim is totally out of line and should be removed. I don't want an edit war, so I will give you at least 48 hours to respond before I delete on this basis. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think Jmabel is right. Maybe the mention should not go in the "stated goal". However, I think there should be a mention in the first section about the group's use of terrorist tactics. Not only that they are considered terrorists, but that they have extensively used terrorist tactics to intimidate the civilian population. How do you suggest we write it?--AAAAA 03:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its stated goal is to replace Peruvian bourgeois institutions with a communist peasant revolutionary regime, through any means possible, including terrorist tactics.

I have two objections to this statement. First, I have never read the phase "through any means possible" in PCP literature. This seems to be a riff on "by any means nessessary," and it wasn't the PCP that said that.

The second objection I have with it is "including terrorist tactics." I have four reasons for this objection:

First, as has been pointed out, PCP never "stated" that they would be willing to engage in terrorism.

Second, it's debateable weather PCP used the classic terrorist theory -- that by engaging in atrocities you can force the state to respond in a heavy-handed manner, thus bolstering your own position (though things certainly did work out that way for the PCP, especially under Alan Garcia).

Third, if that theory doesn't cover what "terrorist tactics" are, I submit that such a thing is so hard to define that it probably doesn't belong here.

Fourth, we can better militarily define what tactics the PCP used that just calling them "terrorist." They were modeled on the theories of protracted people's war. Descendall 06:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with Descendall here. Also, please understand that I would welcome good citations for what governments, NGOs, intergovernmental bodies, etc. have branded the Shining Path as terrorist. I don't disagree with the characterization, I just am concerned in general with the use of this word in Wikipedia's own narrative voice, and in this case with what appears to be an (apparently accidental) false statement. Anyway, I'm way overloaded right now, and would welcome someone else following up on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the Shining Path never counted with much popular support. They gained "support" trough intimidation of rural civilian populations. Thus, the protracted people's ware might not apply here.--AAAAA 11:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think that it's very clear that the PCP used Protracted People's War. Protracted people's warfare doesn't nessessarily require a majority of the population to back it -- in fact, its based around overthrowing a regime that is much more powerful than any small groups of rebels that might exist. In any event, it goes without saying that the PCP failed. Afterall, they're not running the country. No one is arguing that they achieved strategic equilibrium and triumphently marched into Lima. They tried Protracted People's War, got pretty far with it, managed to kill a lot of people and gobble up a lot of land, and then imploded with the capture of Guzman and nearly all of the Central Committee. I think we can all agree on that version of events.Descendall 11:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I think Descendall is missing something important here. According to what I can read about the "protracted people's war", this method is based on maintaining the support of the population (Shining Path did not succeed in this) and drawing the enemy (government) deep into their territory (Shining path initially tried this, but eventually started bombing cilivian targets in the Capital). The main issue for me is that Shining Path cannot be considered just an "Insurgent" or "Guerrilla" group. They are terrorists. They have used terrorist tactics. They have terrorized and bombed the CIVILIAN population. I don't know what else to call that but TERRORISM. And I don't think it's enough to state that certain governments think that they are terrorists. I think that certain groups in the world ARE terrorists, are considered terrorists by the majority of the affected population, and they should be labeled AS SUCH, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ARTICLE.--AAAAA 02:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Again: the problem with this becomes self-evident if you try to make a list of such groups. The list will inevitably be controversial, and not just among fringe thinkers. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
      - Agreed, "terrorist tactics" has no real military meaning. If you want to say "They murdered X amount of civilians on this date" that would get the point across pretty well. Go research some massacares carried out by the PCP. It really shouldn't be hard to do so. If killing civillians is all it takes to be called a terrorist in the opening of the article, then just about every armed group and head of state in the history of the world could be called a terrorist. Including, of course, the PCP, the MRTA, as well as the PNP, the Sinchis, the SIN, the armed forces of Peru, Alan Garcia, Alberto Fujimori, etc. I think it's very clear that the tactics used by the PCP were based off of Mao's "On Guerrilla Warfare." AAAAA seems to be on a campaign to turn this into fujipedia.147.9.151.45 22:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        I have read several articles in Wikipedia that have no relation to Peru in which "terrorist tactics" is used to describe the way a certain group acts. Killing civilians might happen in any country and any government in the world, but there is a big difference between isolated incidents of killing civilians and bombing the world trade center. Or does User:147.9.151.43 want to say that Al Qaeda is an "insurgent" group and doesn't use terrorism? Furthermore, this article is about Shining Path, so why is this user (who seems to be a sockpuppet) mentioning "Fujipedia". Nothing to do here. Last but not least: I understand what is guerrilla warfare. I understand that it might not be proper to label as terrorist a group that sabotages armed forces buildings, bombs bridges used by the military, attacks military compounds, etc, etc. But once they start using BOMBS to indiscriminately and ON PURPOSE killing civilians to terrorize the rest of the population of the country, then THEY ARE TERRORISTS. Period.--AAAAA 02:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Show me where that is a stated goal, and you'll have an argument. Otherwise, I'm going to delete it. EDIT - JMABEL JUST BEAT ME TO ITDescendall 05:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Again, AAAAA, speaking only for myself: I agree that insofar as the word "terrorism" has meaning, the Shining Path are terrorists. However, that is an entirely different question than whether I want that word used in the narrative voice of the article. Again, I think it is ultimately counter-productive for Wikipedia to get into the game of naming who is and isn't terrorists, because there are too many hard cases. Returning to the point that started this discussion: I have no problem with the statement in the lead portion of the article, 'Sendero is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list. Peru, the United Kingdom and European Union likewise regard Shining Path as a terrorist group and prohibit providing funding or other financial support.' Indeed, I would be happy to see a longer list of who says this (for example, any leading NGOs or intergovernmental organizations that have said this). However, the statement that "Its stated goal [italics mine] is to replace Peruvian bourgeois institutions … through any means possible, including terrorist tactics," is uncited, and seems unlikely, so I am now going to remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
        I agree with Descendall and Jmabel on this matter. As AAAAA is well aware, the issue of whether to label terrorists as such in articles has been hotly debated for long time in many places, such as the Talk page of Osama bin Laden. The editorial consensus that has emerged is to avoid it. In any case, I am sure this article can be improved in other ways. -- Viajero 11:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel recent edit seems fine to me.--AAAAA 11:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lighting Cats on Fire - A Good Method of Making Popcorn?

"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."

Is it just me, or does this sound just a tad bit apocryphal? Is this really a tactic that Sendero "sometimes" used? As someone who grew up right next to a huge cornfield, I can tell you that "corn ready for picking" isn't dry and probably wouldn't ignite. And if you really did want to ignite it, there would be methods a hell of a lot more reliable than lighting the tail of a cat on fire and then hoping it would run into some cornstalks. The suggestion that Sendero did this with any luck throws the whole quote into doubt for me. Descendall 11:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Alma Guillermoprieto is a respected Mexican journalist who has received the MacArthur Fellowship and has written extensively about "insurgency wars" in several countries. Maybe Descendall should email her about his doubts.--AAAAA 11:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Descendall, many versions ago, this article, IIRC, was based on a PD text of questionable value from a military website. It contained more of such questionable assertions, which have since been excised. In any case, well spotted. Remove it, unless you can verify it elsewhere. As for Ms Guillermoprieto: was that an attempt at irony? She is a fine reporter, but by no means an expert on SL tactics. It is isn't even something she is particularly interested in, as anyone who has read her books and magazine articles would know. -- Viajero 11:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, I'd forgotten that that text was in the quote from her article. Now I understand the question. Offhand, I don't know of any way of contacting Ms. Guillermoprieto directly; the last time I looked, she didn't have a website. Perhaps via the New Yorker; I will take a look later. -- Viajero 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I took it out, AAAAA put it back in. I still think it should be out, but should be talked about some more before this devolves into a war. I'm busy today, maybe tomorrow... [Descendall]

Well, the obvious compromise would be to remove just the bit about cat, which seems implausible. -- Viajero 15:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree to User:Viajero's solution.--AAAAA 05:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remaining Factions of Shining Path

A few questions about the remaining factions of Shining Path:

Does anyone know the difference between Sendero Rojo and Proseguir? Both of them are of the "leftist" line that advocates continued people's war. I believe that the organization led by Comrade Feliciano was called "Sendero Rojo." I'm not sure if it simply changed its name with Feliciano's capture, or what.

Also, I have noticed some media claim to know the identity of Comrade Armetio. They are saying that it is a guy named Filomeno Cerrón Cardoso. Has that been verfied at all?

One last thing -- I'm not so sure that it is factually correct that "In April 2004, a man known as Artemio and identifying himself as one of the last free Shining Path leaders gave a media interview." I distinctly remember watching that interview on "Cuarto Poder" in Cusco, and I was in Cusco in January and February of 2004. I have a feeling that the BBC article about the interview was simply a few months too late. Descendall 05:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Shining_Path"

Talk:Shining Path

the term "terrorism"

I'm getting dizzy

Recently added link: dubious description

Terrorists or not

Quick poll

Comments

"Terrorist" in the lead

Protection

Official full name of Shining Path

Recent move of article

Larouchie document

"Terrorist"

Shining Path

Picture of Abimael Guzmán

the term "terrorism"

I'm getting dizzy

Recently added link: dubious description

Terrorists or not

Quick poll

Comments

"Terrorist" in the lead

Protection

Official full name of Shining Path

Recent move of article

Larouchie document

"Terrorist"

Shining Path

Picture of Abimael Guzmán

"Terrorist" redux

Lighting Cats on Fire - A Good Method of Making Popcorn?

Remaining Factions of Shining Path

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools