Talk:Shining Path/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive

I have archived the entire page because much of the discussion was years old and none of it was being followed up on. --Descendall (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Absent a new peer review of this article, I really can't think of much more to do, except, perhaps, add a new "ideology" section or something like that. Peer review might be a good way to come up with fresh ideas. --Descendall (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated. Shining path is having a ressurgence and is now entangled in the drug trade. New estimates are 800+ fighters. I read this on an AP article dated 5-30-2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.198.79 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent activity section

This article has become totally static except for updates every time the Shining Path does takes a shot at some passing government troops. It's probably not a good thing to just tack on every single action the Shining Path takes, but I don't know what should be done instead. --71.163.199.217 (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone please rewrite!

This page is grossly biased. An encyclopedia must not contain entries with a POV! If I had the knowledge to rewrite this article I would do so. It needs a complete overhaul. If any of you are capable of taking this on, please do and fast. As it stands, the page is useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.245.174 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Partido Comunista del Perú

The first line of this article claims that Sendero Luminoso and the Peruvian Communist Party are one in the same; this is not true. The Peruvian Communist Party was founded in the 1920s by José Carlos Mariátegui. PCP is a branched party organization, and Guzmán belonged to a branch called PCP-Bandera Roja (PCP-BR). When he began to advocate violent resistance to the state, Guzmán was expelled from PCP-BR and began his own branch of the party, which he called Sendero Luminoso (PCP-SL). If no one objects, I will change the opening line of the article to reflect that distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.154.69 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're getting your parties mixed up. The article does not say that Sendero Luminoso is the same as the current Peruvian Communist Party (frequently known as "Unidad," and the Peruvian Communist Party is a different party than the Peruvian Communist Party – Red Flag. One was Pro-Moscow and the other was Pro-Beijing. The Shining Path does call itself the Communist Party of Peru, however. --71.163.201.34 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The article very much says exactly that, which is very misleading to people who are not informed about Peruvian politics and very right-wing POV, clearly intended to smear Peruvian communism. To quote: "The Communist Party of Peru (Spanish: Partido Comunista del Perú), more commonly known as the Shining Path (Spanish: Sendero Luminoso), is a terrorist group in Peru."

Given how Sendero Luminoso aren't remotely the only party to claim the name and legacy of PCP, that there is a common and accepted way of describing PCP factions as PCP-Faction Name, and that other such parties (namely the Unidad) are active members of democratic process in the country an unbiased, clearer and more accurate opening text should be:

The PCP-Sendero Luminoso, known in the west as the Shining Path, is a terrorist group in Peru. The party officially refers to itself as Communist Party of Peru (Spanish: Partido Comunista del Perú), although that denomination is used and disputed by multiple parties, including legal, participating ones, in the country.

Hanging dogs

Someone added in that the Shining Path hanged dogs as a warning to "capitalist dogs." While it's true that the Shining Path did famously hang dogs in Lima, I believe that every book I've read on the Shining Path (and I've probably read nearly all of them that are published in English), has said that the dogs were hanged with a placard that said "Deng Xiaoping, son of a bitch." I am in possession of a photograph of a hanged dog where those words are visable. The hanged dogs weren't a warning to "capitalists" but rather to "revisionists," who are represented by Deng Xiaoping by orthodox Marxists. I think that the article about "capitalist dogs" is simply incorrect. --71.163.70.174 (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a famous photograph here of a hanged dog in Lima with a placard that appears to say "Teng Siao Ping." --71.163.70.174 (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the sentence for this reason. --72.83.93.136 (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

For what it's worth, I support Descendall's changes here. We need to stick with neutral language when describing the facts. The facts concerning the actions of this group speak for themselves; we don't need to reinforce the point with colored language.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic text

The following passage contains,

Abimael Guzmán stated that "the triumph of the revolution will cost a million lives" - at a time when Peru's population was only 19 million. To that end, the Shining Path attempted to eradicate elements of the political and social order, attacking community leaders, teachers and professors, and political leaders. The first case of "popular justice" was the assassination in December 1980 of Benigno Medina, a landowner. In January 1982, two teachers were executed in front of their students. Several months later, 67 "traitors" were subjected to public execution. In addition, they set about demolishing all government installations and infrastructure. In August 1982, they destroyed the Center for Agricultural Research and Experimentation in Allpahaca and killed the animals

In what document did Guzman talk about a million lives? Please provide the original Spanish so that I can verify it. From what sources do the allegations about executions and assassinations originate? A controversial, polemical source like the Black Book of Communism cannot be cited because there are peer-reviewed sources written by scholars of better quality than this. Nor is the source appropriate because it devotes no more than a 5 pages or so about Peru. We've got numerous works from academic publishers about the Shining Path, which makes the citing of editorials from the popular media and pop-history like the Black Book of Communism inappropriate in this article. SadSwanSong (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shining_Path/Archive_3#Black_Book_of_Communism.2C_Courtois.2C_Guzman_quote from five years ago. It looks like Luis Arce Borja was quoted as saying this, rather than Guzman. No idea if Arce Borja really did say it or not. --Descendall (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus about correctly naming the organization

According to the Wikipedia edition guidelines, there are words whose use should be avoided (but not excluded); those words can be used, however, when they best approach a definition of something and provided that certain conditions are met. One of these words is "terrorist". The official Wikipedia guidelines state:

"If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation."

In the case of Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso), a reliable source, in this case the Peruvian "Comision de la Verdad y la Reconciliacion", (Truth and Reconciliation Commission), which was a commission created to inquiry about the conflict in Peru, made by representative members of the Peruvian society who witnessed the conflict, states in its final report that Sendero Luminoso is a terrorist group. I will quote the first paragraph of the first page, word by word, in Spanish:

"El Partido Comunista del Perú, conocido como Sendero Luminoso (PCP-SL), es una organización subversiva y terrorista, que en mayo de 1980 desencadenó un conflicto armado contra el Estado y la sociedad peruana. La CVR ha constatado que a lo largo de ese conflicto, el más violento de la historia de la República, el PCP-SL cometió gravísimos crímenes que constituyen delitos de lesa humanidad y fue responsable del 54% de víctimas fatales reportadas a la CVR. En base a los cálculos realizados, la CVR estima que la cifra total de víctimas fatales provocadas por el PCP-SL asciende a 31,331 personas"

An approximate translation into English:

"The Communist Party of Peru, known as Sendero Luminoso (PCP-SL), is a terrorist and subversive organization, that in May 1980 started an armed conflict against the Peruvian state and the Peruvian society. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has verified that during the conflict, the most violent in the Peruvian republican history, the PCP-SL commited grave crimes constituting crimes against humanity and was responsible of 54% of fatal victims reported to the commission. In basis on the estimations effectued, the commission estimates that the total number of fatal victims caused by the PCP-SL reaches 31,331 people"

The Commission does describe other actors in the conflict, including guerrilla groups, clearly classified as such, e.g. the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru. It is open and valid to anyone to incriminate the Peruvian military for state terrorism, according to the guidelines.

I therefore ask the word "terrorist" be used in this article, quoting the proper source and more, quoting the entire paragraph referring this group's definition.

I have seen that formerly quoted sources included the US government, which is deemed to have anti-Communist prejudices. Therefore I also suggest mediation. Contacting Peruvian sources, the Commission, some of their members, or maybe the Peruvian courts of justice could shine light upon these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.73.116 (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article, and even the introduction, already indicates who considers Shining Path to be a terrorist organization, and why. No need to overstate it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That would not be overstating it: only stating. Who does not consider that organization as a terrorist organization, and why?

Perhaps the most neutral term would be not naming it with any adjectives at all: for an organization it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.160.63.182 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes have made to the page directly naming Sendero Luminoso as an "insurgent guerrilla" group:

According to the insurgent definition by Peruvian law: (Constitucion Politica del Peru, available at the Peruvian Constitutional Tribunal website at http://www.tc.gob.pe/legconperu/constitucion.html) (in Spanish)

(Title II, Chapt. I, Art. 46) (highlighting the second paragraph defining the right of insurgence) (Original) Artículo 46°. Nadie debe obediencia a un gobierno usurpador, ni a quienes asumen funciones públicas en violación de la Constitución y de las leyes. La población civil tiene el derecho de insurgencia en defensa del orden constitucional. Son nulos los actos de quienes usurpan funciones públicas.

(Approximate translation): Article 46º Nobody owes allegiance to an usurper government, not to who assume public office violating the Constitution and the laws. The civilian population has the right of insurgence in defense of the constitutional order. The acts of whose usurp public office are null.

Sendero Luminoso does not fit to this description.

Concerning the definition of Sendero Luminoso as a guerrilla group, and distinguishing its actions from other groups, namely the MRTA (quoting the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission):

Unlike Shining Path, and like other armed Latin American organizations with which it maintained ties, the MRTA claimed responsibility for its actions, its members used uniforms or other identifiers to differentiate themselves from the civilian population, it abstained from attacking the unarmed population and at some points showed signs of being open to peace negotiations. Nevertheless, MRTA also engaged in criminal acts; it resorted to assassinations, such as in the case of General Enrique López Albújar, the taking of hostages and the systematic practice of kidnapping, all crimes that violate not only personal liberty but the international humanitarian law that the MRTA claimed to respect. It is important to highlight that MRTA also assassinated dissidents within its own ranks.

Because of the generalized and systematic nature of these practices, the TRC points out that members of the PCP-SL, and especially its national directors and its designated leadership, have direct responsibility for the commission of crimes against humanity in the form of armed attacks against the civilian population, carried out on a grand scale or as part of a general strategy or specific plans. In the judgment of the TRC, these actions likewise constitute grave violations of the Geneva Conventions, which were obligatory for all the participants in the hostilities. The perfidy with which the PCP-SL acted on the ground, using the civilian population as a shield, avoiding the use of uniforms or other marks to identify themselves, and attacking traitors, among other similar methods, such as recourse to terrorist actions, constituted a calculated mechanism that sought to provoke brutal reactions from the security forces against the civilian population, increasing to an extraordinary extent the suffering of the communities in whose territories the hostilities took place.

http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/ifinal/conclusiones.php

Sendero Luminoso does not fit in the definition of a guerrilla warfare group.

It does, however, fit in the description of a terrorist group, as stated above in this same discussion page: however, as to avoid NPOV conflicts and the very use of the word "terrorist" as a potentially biased word (or a word that could lead to a potential bias), it should be named as an organization without further definition.

I notice that the Spanish Wikipedia article at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendero_Luminoso does name Sendero Luminoso a terrorist organization.

I also suggest mediation, and contacting the actors of this conflict. However I say that simply naming Sendero Luminoso an organization without specifying the type of organization is a valid, neutral point of view solution until a more detailed consensual solution is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.80.52 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you post some evidence that Sendero Luminoso is neither an insurgent group nor a guerrilla organization? None of the stuff you posted above was anything other than a non-sequitur. Otherwise, I'll just reinstate the article as it was. --72.83.101.171 (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Under that logic, it would equally be called a terrorist group, unless you post some evidence Sendero Luminoso is not a terrorist group. (be sure to post 1. the definition of terrorist and 2. sound arguments backing why it is not a terrorist group, as have been posted about why it is not an insurgent group). But again, as we can not call it terrorist we will not. So I will remove the "insurgent" tag and again ask for mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.87.137 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

terrorists

calling them "terrorists" is very biased, the people in the American revolution are not referred to as "terrorists".........

I would call "terrorist" to any group which attacks innocent people. Revolution is the excuse, but that would be against the government, not the people. Sergioag (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum so please leave your political discussions out of this. With regards to any use of the word "terrorist" it should be stated that this is a title designated by a government (e.g., Peru, U.S, etc.. designate the Shining Path as a terrorist organization). The article does that so there is nothing to argue about here.--Jersey Devil (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This not a matter of a title designated by government, it is a matter of definition. Both from wikipedia:

Terrorism is the intentional use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-combatants "in order to achieve political goals".

Guerrilla warfare is the unconventional warfare and combat in which a small group of combatants use mobile tactics in the form of ambushes and raids to combat a larger and less mobile formal army.

Here in the same articles says: 'Widely condemned for its brutality, including violence deployed against peasants, trade union organizers, popularly elected officials and the general civilian population'.

You can read all that you want in the CVR webpage http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/pagina01.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoidhuman (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Peruvian military are the real terrorists who burn villages to the ground and slaughter innocents in their bid to retain their oppressive regime's power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.154.217 (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that Sendero Luminoso are real terrorists too, who burn villages to the ground and slaughter innocents in their bid to attain their oppressive regime's power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.92.188 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding these comments, I added a fact in the first paragraph: "It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, and Canada". That is a fact and not an opinion. If you decide to add opinions, they will be deleted. However, you can add "opinions" of institutions and cite them, as I did. Even better, look for other Wikipedia entries (I looked at how terrorists groups are described) to get ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.178.205 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Bill on denying the violence that took place?

Present Humula recently proposed a bill to make it a crime for anyone to publicly 'approving, justifying, denying, or minimizing' the crimes of terrorism (those that took place during the Internal Conflict). Should this be mentioned?

It is based on the bill passed in Germany making denial of Nazi Germany's atrocities a crime. Phi O'Byrne (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Name

"Shining Path" is a light musical comedy directed by Grigori Alexandrov in the thirties. The name of the film was personally suggested by Stalin. See "The Court of the Red Tsar". Chapter 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.77.147 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The name of the group comes from a phrase by Jose Carlos Mariategui.--Jersey Devil (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sendero Luminoso, not Shinig Path

I propose the change of title to the article to "Sendero Luminoso". The organization is called Sendero Luminoso, period. Shining Path is a translation used exclusively as such in US news and was never used in the group official statements or anywhere else, hence it shouldn't be the title of the article. Max Ventura Italy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.163.171.250 (talk) 07:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The name of the organization is Partido Comunista del Perú. In Spanish, it is more often called "Sendero Luminoso." In English, it is more often called "Shining Path." This is the English Wikipedia so we go with what the organization is most often called in English. --72.83.90.103 (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Labor camps

Currently the article says this: "In addition to massacres, the Shining Path established labor camps to punish those who 'betrayed' the 'forces of the people'. Those imprisoned were forced to work the lands and the coca fields. Hunger and deprivation were commonplace, and attempting escape was punishable by immediate execution."

I don't think that this is a very accurate description of what happened. It's true that Sendero treated people terribly and it's also true that it took over villages of peasants who worked the land, and sometimes stole from them, which was basically stealing the products of their labor. However, the use of the phrase "labor camps" suggests something on a much larger scale, like the labor camps in Nazi Germany and the regions occupied by German forces in the Second World War. I believe that Sendero never established anything quite like that, and in fact never had such firm control over the countryside that they'd have been able to establish a real network of labor camps like this world saw during the 1930s and 1940s. I worry that in sentences I quoted above thus obfuscate the situation in Peru in the 1980s more than illuminate it, and thus suggest the two lines be deleted. Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? --72.83.90.103 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been eight months, and no one has responded. I've deleted the offending paragraph. --147.9.149.54 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So, you are saying is not so "bad" because the scale of the labor camps are not comparable with the Nazi ones? I'm sorry but your "argument" is just an excuse to erease a well-sourced affirmation of facts, so I'm going to revert your deletion. Greetings.----Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 14:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I am saying that "labor camps" in the sense that almost all English-speakers would understand the term did not exist. What existed were small villages, primarily in the Ayacucho, Huancavelica, and Apurimac regions, but also in the ceja de la selva, in which Sendero made incursions and established, by force, their comites populares. In doing so, Sendero certainly abused the hell out of a lot of people, including massacring people. That, however, is much different from what is regularly considered a "labor camp." There wasn't any "camp" in any real sense of the word because Sendero didn't have the power and territorial control to establish that type of thing. You're wrong, in my opinion, in saying that there is a "well-sourced affirmation" that labor camps existed. I have probably read just about every book ever written on Sendero as well as a tremendous number of peer-reviewed articles on Sendero. I additionally have probably read the majority of diplomatic cables between AMEMBASSY LIMA and SECSTATE from the 1985-2000 era that are on political violence in Peru. I've never seen anything referencing "labor camps." The source we provide is a book that is much closer to being a piece of political propaganda than anything even resembling a scholarly take on Sendero. There is no real way in which saying "Sendero established labor camps" actually informs people more than it misinforms people -- any person reading that will imagine that Sendero established something that they never did establish. This issue was first raised on the talk page on 9 June 2013. Seeing that no one bothered to respond, and thinking that the "labor camp" reference was misplaced, I changed it on 24 February 2014. I find it exceedingly strange that you are assume bad faith on my behalf. --147.9.149.54 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently there is an unregistered user trying to impose his POV about the labour camps, which is clearly stated in lines above, therefore, I'm reverting his undo. Greetings --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry CloudAOC, that's not how it works. If someone posts an idea of what the page should look like on the talk page, you don't get to ignore it for months at a time (like you did with the original post in this thread, which is about ten months old, and then, when someone finally implements the change, come in here, revert the page, and refuse to participate in discussion. Why "labor camps" is not a good term to be using in English has already been spelled out here. You have not added anything to the conversation, likely because you don't really have a good grasp of the connotations that have been written about, given that your user page is written in garbled English. Until you do have some substantive response, stop reverting the page. --147.9.149.19 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shining Path/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article contains a lot of uncited statements that need citations. This article fails criterion 1b, for not providing citations for "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". I will wait a week before closing this reassessment so editors can have the opportunity to fix these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Delisted. It's been a week. There doesn't appear to be much interest in fixing these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Both of you are edit warring; please stop immediately. The material was added by C.J. Griffin here. It is attributed to The Black Book of Communism, which should be a reliable source for this topic. It seems that the anon's primary complaint is the use of the phrase "labor camp", which is "a penal colony where forced labor is performed" according to Merriam-Webster.[1] Unless this point is specifically challenged in other sources, I don't see the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree The unregistered user is employing only its WP:OR justify its editions, and also attacking me directly as an attempt to reinforce its WP:OWN of this article. Thanks for the intervention, I was about to report him to the administration. Greetings.--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 06:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, all parties need to stop reverting each other; this makes a content dispute an edit war. As I said, upon cursory review I tend to agree that the material is acceptable (the source is reliable, the phrasing is fine) so long as it accurately represents what the source says. I can verify this later today.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing is not fine. Nobody here contests the fact that the Shining Path never ran anything close to resembling "a penal colony where forced labor is performed." Cloudaoc certainly doesn't; his objection is that I haven't stated my full name (I'm not sure why he hasn't stated his). That is not a legitimate reason to keep this clumsy wording. --147.9.149.19 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cúchullain. Been a while since I logged in and contributed anything -- I just got a notice that I have a "new" message that is about a year old. Anyway, "labor camps" is obviously a stretch in this instance. Sendero never really had the resources and territorial control to create an actual labor camp or anything. They did march into villages, declare them to be liberated zones, and told all the peasants that they had to organize as Shining Path. As Maoists, they also did talk a lot about "collective work" and stuff like that. They also kidnapped people and forced them to work for Sendero, often as unwilling combatants. They also evacuated villages and held them in terrible conditions. This, of course, is speculation, but had they taken over Peru, I imagine that they would have established some sort of godawful labor camps like those that existed in Cambodia. I am not sure that you can really say that Sendero did run "labor camps" though.

As I alluded to, it's been years since I've been a serious editor on Wikipedia, but I faintly recall there being a whole bunch of discussion and debate about whether The Black Book of Communism should be considered a reliable source. I have no idea where that discussion and debate took place and where the ultimate result was, though. That book is certainly not some sort of academic book on Peru or Sendero. If Sendero did run a labor camp, I'd expect it to be in the academic literature about Sendero. I'd also expect it to be in the Informe Final of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I actually have the entirety of the Informe Final on my computer. It's a nine-volume work that spans thousands of pages, so there is frankly no way in hell I am actually going to sit down and read it all in order to resolve some revert war on the internet. That being said, I did search it for the word campamento, which means camp in Spanish. The word actually appears a whole bunch of times, but it is almost always in the context of the more traditional meaning of the word "camp" as in a place you sleep in the woods, usually in reference to military forces setting up camp in a given place. There are, however, some times it is used in reference to Sendero that might be of interest. I include them and my own best translation of the Spanish, which is not perfect, below:

Por su formación contrasubversiva, las acciones del PCP-SL les resultaron totalmente ajenas a lo que ellos esperaban de un grupo subversivo. El PCP-SL atacaba a traición, de manera inesperada; no tenía campamentos ni se desplazaba en columnas.

(For their [the elite counter-terrorism forces] countersubservice formation/training, the actions of the PCP-SL [Sendero] were totally divorced from what they had been expecting of a subversive group. The PCP-SL attacked treacherously and in an unexpected manner. They did not have camps, nor did they displace in [military] columns.)

Tanto las Fuerzas Armadas como el Gobierno ignoraban que el PCP-SL no dependía de apoyo ni de directivas foráneas, que no establecía campamentos ni mantenía columnas y que acumulaba poder político y militar mediante una estrategia sin precedentes en América Latina.

(The Armed Forces, just like the government, ignored that the PCP-SL did not depend on foreign support or directives, it did not establish camps nor maintain columns, and it it accumulated political and military power via a strategy that was unprecedented in Latin America.)

Además, no establecía en general campamentos ni se proponía establecer columnas permanentes.

(Furthermore, it did not, in general, establish camps, nor did it propose to establish permanent columns.)

Luego de la ofensiva militar iniciada en 1983, el EGP se vio obligado a desplazarse por las zonas más altas de la cuenca del Pampas utilizando diversos campamentos, lo que permitía a las patrullas militares detectarlos con mayor facilidad.

(After the above mentioned military offensive in 1893, the EGP [People's Guerrilla Army] was forced to move to the higher zones of the Pampas basin, using various camps, which allowed the military patrols to detect them more easily)

Desde 1984, ante la ofensiva militar y la resistencia de algunas comunidades, el PCP-SL optó por utilizar con mayor frecuencia sus refugios-campamentos en espacios cercanos a sus bases de apoyo, convertidas en blanco privilegiado de las patrullas militares.

(From 1984, given the military offensive in the resistance to them in some communities, the PCP-SL opted to use, with greater frequency, its refuges -- camps in areas close to their support basis, which became great targets for military patrols.)

Cuando se hacía urgente mantener a la población como apoyo logístico de unidades militares importantes, se optaba por una política de desplazamiento forzoso y servidumbre que obligaba a la población civil (considerada como «masa») a trasladarse de un lugar a otro huyendo de la presencia estatal, sin ningún reparo por las condiciones de vida extremas a las que esa población era sometida en campamentos improvisados.

(When it became urgent to maintain the population as logistical support of major military units, they [Sendero] opted for a policy of forced displacement and servitude that forced the civilian population (which they considered to be the "masses") to move from one place to another fleeing the presence of the state, unabashedly by the extreme living conditions that the population was subjected to in improvised camps.)

El PCP-SL estableció, al igual que en el río Pampas, algunos campamentos importantes, entre los cuales destaca el denominado «Sello de Oro» en la zona de Simariva, distrito de Santa Rosa. Allí organizó su «masa» de campesinos, según su concepción de nuevo Estado. Lo mismo decidió hacer, ante la presión de militares y ronderos, desde febrero de 1984 en Chungui: organizó retiradas en diferentes localidades. Las retiradas consistían en desalojar el centro poblado y refugiarse en los cerros y en el monte de la ceja de selva, en zonas de difícil acceso. En otras palabras, el PCP-SL trasladó a sus «bases de apoyo» radicalmente para evitar su arrasamiento. Esta situación es comparable a la ocurrida con algunas bases del PCP-SL entre la población asháninka, en la selva central, igualmente retirada hacia el monte para evitar los operativos militares (véase el estudio de la CVR sobre los asháninkas y el capítulo VI de la historia de la región del Centro). La gente de la «Oreja de Perro» vivió en retiradas dispuestas por el PCP-SL entre tres y cuatro años, organizada en una suerte de «comunidad perfecta» en la cual todos vivían juntos, se ayudaban y compartían sus bienes: «Todos vivíamos en el monte en armonía...» (grupo focal de mujeres, Oronqoy). La jerarquía senderista era la misma que en todas las regiones: la dirección local, la fuerza principal (FP), la fuerza local (FL) y la masa, compuesta en este caso por la población de las localidades que fueron organizadas en retiradas. Esta vida armónica duró hasta que la falta de alimentos y las presiones internas del PCP-SL sobre la masa empezaron a ser cada vez más críticas, por lo que las ejecuciones al interior del PCP-SL se intensificaron.

(The PCP -SL established, as in the Pampas River, some important camps, among which the so-called "Golden Seal" in the area of Simariva in the district of Santa Rosa. There they organized their "masses" of peasants in their conception of the new state. They decided, under pressure from military and ronderos from February 1984 Chungui to organize retreats in different locations. The retreats consisted of the displacement of the the population center taking refuge in the hills and the mountains of the ceja de selva areas, which are difficult to access. In other words, the PCP -SL moved ts "support bases" radically to avoid annihilation. This situation is comparable to what happened with some of the PCP-SL support bases among the Ashaninka population as in the central jungle, also were withdrawn to the mountains to avoid military operations (see the study of CVR on the Ashaninka and Chapter VI history of the central region ). The people of "Oreja de Perro" lived in redoubts of the PCP-SL for between three and four years, organized in a "perfect community" in which all lived together, helped each other, and shared their goods: "We send all would live in harmony ... "(focus group of women, Oronqoy) . The Senderisa hierarchy was the same in all regions: the local directorate, the main force (FP), the local force (FL), and masses, composed in this case the population of the towns that were organized in retreats. This harmonious life lasted until they ran out of food and the level of internal pressures by the PCP-SL on the masses began to be increasingly critical, so that executions within the PCP-SL intensified.)

Entre 1993 y 1995, el número de pobladores, nativos y colonos rescatados de los campamentos del PCP-SL se incrementó de manera significativa debido a una serie de circunstancias que se conjugaron: el miedo vencido, el hambre, la ley de arrepentimiento y el hostigamiento militar, así como el de las rondas nativas y colonas.

(Between 1993 and 1995, the number of villiagers, natives and settlers rescued from the camps of the PCP-SL increased significantly due to a number of circumstances that came together: the end of fear, hunger, Repentence Law and military harrassment, as well as native and settler rondas.)

Los niños estaban desnutridos y lloraban de hambre, por lo que los mandos de la «masa» y de la «fuerza local» decidieron ejecutarlos. En varios de los campamentos de Oreja de Perro, obligaban a las madres a matar a sus propios niños. Algunas los ahogaban en su pecho; pero, cuando la madre no quería acatar la orden del mando político del campamento, éste tomaba a los niños pequeños por los pies y les golpeaba la cabeza contra una piedra. Otras veces les amarraban una soga alrededor del cuello y los ahorcaban. El argumento para asesinar a estos niños era que los llantos los delataban frente a las patrullas militares.

(The children were malnourished and cried out from hunger, for this reason the leaders of the "masses" and of the "local force" decided to execute them.In some of the camps of Oreja de Perro, they forced mother to kill their own children. Some of them were choked by their breast, but, when the more did not want to carry out the order of the political commander of the camp, he took the little children by the feet and would dash their heads against a rock. Other times they would tie a rope around their neck and choke them. The argument for murdering these children was that their cries betrayed them when heard by the military patrols.)

Anyway, I could go on and on, but the upshot is the the Truth and Reconciliation Commission basically does not use the term labor camps. It does recognize that Sendero never wanted to establish camps, and in fact was ideologically against it, but that Sendero did attempt to pick up its support base and move them all to remote parts of the countryside, which naturally led to huger. It also recognizes that Sendero treated their "masses" exremely cruely. I think this article would be much better if it explained all that instead of using a book that really sheds no new light on Sendero to simply say "Sendero established labor camps." That type of language does indeed bring to mind Nazi-style concentration camps, and it doesn't tell a part of the story that deserves to be told. I'm for removing the language about labor camps. If any other editor would like to insert languge explaining what happened and citing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that'd be great. --Descendall (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll bow to your expertise on this issue, Descendall. If there's an issue with the source on this topic, clearly it shouldn't be used when there are plenty of unquestionably reliable sources available. And I haven't been able to get a copy to verify that it actually uses this language anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't want to edit the page. I'm retired from wikipedia. I suggest eliminating the labor camp thing until someone adds in an explanation of the stuff I cited above. What do the other editors think of this? --Descendall (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No one bothered to respond, so I made the edit.--Descendall (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)