I would like to expand either the FARC page or the National Front (Colombia) because they’re related to violence in Colombia and had a large effect on each other, but it’s only briefly alluded to in both pages. Another thing that could be expanded on is the new role of the FARC as a disarmed guerrilla movement and how it’s a political party now, although that is current news and would be more difficult to write about. There are many websites from reputable sources sources. There’s also a series of interviews with former guerrillas about reintegration by Humans of New York, a blog whose author often travels to countries with humanitarian issues. There’s nothing on the Talk page of the National Front (Colombia) page. There’s a lot of argument about bias on the FARC page and how to remove it, as well as whether there is bias there to begin with.
- About WordPress
- Log In
- Register
Check PageSpeed ScoreNot optimizedCheck the PageSpeed score
PageSpeed score is an essential attribute to your website’s performance. It affects both the user experience and SEO rankings.
You can hide this element from the settings
Checking...
We are checking the PageSpeed score of your Wikipedia Article Edits page.
PageSpeed score of Wikipedia Article Edits pageMobile score Load time: sDesktop score Load time: sYou can hide this element from the settings
What does FARC stand for? I think removing the bias’ on the page or making them more neutral would be a great edit to this page.
Hi Kyrsten! FARC stands for Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, but in English when we refer to FARC we either just use the Spanish abbreviation or say Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
Keira,
I think your best bet may be to focus specifically on FARC as a rebel group instead of as a political party. From the little I know about FARC, it seems as though they have not worked hard to make the transition from rebel group to political party. What I mean is that although they may now be considered a political party, they are still very much a violent rebel group, and it does not appear as though they have given up their violent tactics in exchange for a more peaceful, political approach to change.
What I think is particularly interesting about FARC is their income. Although they supposedly exist to fight the inequality in Colombia, they may actually be causing it more harm than good, particularly because it is believed that a large portion of their income comes from illegal drug trafficking. Of course, Colombia is notorious for its cocaine trafficking, and the fact that FARC allows and encourages drug trafficking in Colombia shows that FARC is causing a lot of problems for Colombia and for the rest of Latin America. Thus, I think you should focus on FARC’s involvement in the illegal trafficking of cocaine, and its effect on Colombia, the rest of Latin America, and the world (particularly the US).
This is a tricky article, both because of the controversies that surround the peace process and because it is so well documented. Come see me and we’ll talk about strategies to make this a more feasible topic.
You included some sources that have impactful, concrete information. The information comes from first the hand experience of those involved in the war, increasing the urgency to include this in the Wikipedia article. I also find it to be very important that there is significant controversy over FARC’s webpage and many who appose.