Talk:Abimael Guzmán

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:
      • guzmanconstruction.webs.comBarbaries 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)

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)

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).

Date of primary image

Greetings, all. The image of the article's subject is ostensibly dated "1993." However, as all evidence in the media shows, Guzman was captured sporting a beard he subsequently never shaved. Yet the image is dated after his 1992 capture. What gives? -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Has the picture since been removed? I'm curious what you're referring to Freyheytlid (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

move???

most people know Guzmán as Chairman Gonzalo... would it be better to have the page titled 'Chairman Gonzalo'? Marxistnatalie (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

most people know Guzmán as Chairman Gonzalo

Not outside of niche internet circles no. A search for "Chairman Gonzalo" returns far fewer hits (by several orders of magnitude) than "Abimael Guzmán" on both Google Search and Google Scholar—and it seems pretty clear that reliable sources use Abimael Guzmán far more often than Chairman Gonzalo. This would also run into WP:POVTITLE issues, on similar lines as to why the article Muhammad isn't found at Prophet Muhammad. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Most folks who are outside niche political circles will not refer to him as 'Chairman Gonzalo' FropFrop (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

The opening paragraphs of the article appear to give the impression of whitewashing Guzmán's actions. In comparison to other languages' respective Wikipedia pages, this article paints him with the dubious neutral title of "revolutionary" and then goes on to elaborate on his proclaimed ideology of "armed struggle stressing the empowerment of the Indigenous people". In comparison, the Spanish Wikipedia article, while also using similar language at times, does have a paragraph dedicated to his trial and the group's treatment of lower-class farmers, peasants, etc. Other Wikipedia projects' articles outright use the label terrorist.

I am most concerned at the language used here in the opening paragraphs and wholeheartedly believe it should be rewritten to at least mirror the Spanish Wikipedia's page. The rest of the article at least appears—at a first glance—to be more neutral in writing, although I see interesting (perhaps clever) placements of the citation needed templates in parts of a paragraph that describe the rural peasants' opposition to the group.

I'm not sure if for these cases a conflict of interest disclosure is needed, so I'll just note that I have indirectly been affected by the conflict at a scale that I believe to be considered irrelevant. 180app (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

+1 to your view FropFrop (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)