Talk:United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Colombian WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Colombia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Click here and join us!. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 To-do list for United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
I would propose to add A LOT more about the Auc and the Narcotrafíco. The AUC´s history in the 00s and the whole demoblizationssprocess, has been dominated by this thema. There are a lots of important things: the sell of the bloques to Narcos (Arroyabe= Bloque Centauros, Vencedores de Arauca= Mellizos, Bloque Pacifico= Don Berna), The concentration of high para chieftains like, Vicente Castano, Don Berna, Hernan Giraldo on drugtrade. The discusion about the paracaídistas, the narcos, who bought themselves in for demobilisation, f.e "el gordo lindo" Zuluaga, the two "Los Mellizos" Mejia-Munera.., later even Jhonny Cano............. i would like to help, but i fear my english is too bad--84.113.236.23 13:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Use of bold around "had a single gun in their possession" seems to create a point-of-view. You could just have easily bolded "approximately 100" and taken the other point of view. Also, is there any doubt that the AUC occasionally goes into Venezuela? Castano himself has admitted it.
- I'm going to give it the axe.
-
- Fine by me, at least. I didn't bold that part in my original edit/addition of that phrase; it was a later modification by someone else.Juancarlos2004 19:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] On the New Section
Travb: I've noticed your newest edits, and while they are nice and interesting enough...there are at least a couple of formal issues that can be raised immediately after reading the newest section that you are working on.
Do the Order, the networks and links mentioned specifically lead to the "creation of the AUC"? That is debatable. What is definitely clear, IMHO, is the historical relevance of that information as part of the development of paramilitarism as a whole, and the relationship between the military and paramilitary (or paramilitary-like) organizations. But directly linking that to the creation of the AUC per se, on the other hand, is more subjective (something which would be more evident if the article eventually included more details on the AUC's history as an specific entity).
So much so, that not even HRW's original report (which can be read online, btw), nor the text by Doug Stokes (which you are quoting/rephrasing), specifically states or argues that the U.S. was involved in the "creation of the AUC" due to those events. That, say, U.S. actions contributed to paramilitarism and military-paramilitary relations, which that information makes completely clear, isn't equal to saying that they contributed to the creation of the AUC.
That being the case, the phrasing and location of the new information doesn't seem quite right, from a strictly Wikipedia-like point of view. At least not in the way it's currently included in the article
Taking this into account, I would argue that the section, in its current form, and most of its information would be better suited for the article "Paramilitarism in Colombia", which has a scope that goes beyond the AUC. That information is definitely important, and I thank you for digging it up (so to speak), but the direct implication that those specific actions led to the AUC, does look out of place here, and may be technically subject to the dreaded accusation of being "original research". Juancarlos2004 02:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I will move it right now. Good call. It can't be original research cause none of it is original LOL. Travb 02:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Politics?
Can anyone elaborate on the politics on the United. Self-Defense Forces? Although they are described as "right-wing," what are the main tenants the group holds?--Whistlesgowhoo 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be just united as anti-FARC, which is probably why AUC has so many internal conflicts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] wrong numbers
the demobilization bit needs to be up to date, "17,000 out of 20,000" AUC members surrendering in Feb 2006 cannot be right as in August 2006 30,000 were demobilized. Source: reuters, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05280049.htm and MIPT terrorism database http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=126.
Though I can't find numbers for the total of active members of AUC left.
Flo 16:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are right about the first part, as the article is definitely at least a few months out of date. As for your second comment, you probably won't find it, since the AUC formally ceased to exist when the final demobilizations took place.
- Something else, however, would be estimating the number of those paramilitaries that continue operating but are no longer considered part of AUC (even if some were indeed part of the AUC until recently), for whatever reasons. Estimates for those do exist. Juancarlos2004 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would think that it would be impossible to make such an estimate. I've seen about 20 names of right-wing gangs comprised of demobilized AUC members, and it seems to me like such groups would so decentralized and clandestine that any estimate would be way off. --Descendall 05:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will sound dumb here. AUC ceased to exist? when? where? link, article?
damn, how could something so big escape my vigilance??? --Flo 16:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The AUC stoped "existing" with demobilization. That's not to say that all of a sudden every paramilitary fighter decided to live a life of peace; obviously a lot of them are in gangs/new paramilitary organizations. Colombialibre.org has changed it's name around a few times, but it's always something like "Official webpage of the ex-combatants of the AUC." Now it calls itself the "National Movement of Demobilized Autodefensas." At one point I saw it calling itself "Alianza Unida por Cambio" or something similar that shared the "AUC" initials. --Descendall 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History?
what was or is their political vision? (maybe some sort of Colombian version of Democratic realism???? can it be changed from the "colombian conflict infobox" (temporarily?) to former groups since they no longer are operating as AUC???--F3rn4nd0 
14:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good question. A lot of these guys obviously want to go into (legitimate) politics, so I suppose that they'll have to form some sort of platform. in 1998, Carlos Castano, who is now dead, made something that resembled a platform of sorts, see http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/pot-paramil.htm Keep in mind, however, that Carlos Castano is a first-class bullshitter. --Descendall 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
None. They were formed by known drug trafickers mostly to protect their trade and protect wealthy land owners. don't be fooled by the name "peaseant" there's absolutely nothing pro-peaseant about this organization. The worst part about this group is that they commited thousands upon thousands of deaths and very little justice has been brought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.22.115 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pop Culture/Movies
Might be worth noting that a main character (Jose Yero) in Miami Vice (2006) is identified as AUC. user: fx6893 22 Dec 2006
Pop Culture/Movies Might be worth mentioning that a main character named Jose Yero in the movie Miami Vice (2006) is identified as an AUC member. Fx6893 23:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chiquita Banana incident
It might be worth mentioning that Chiquita had to pay a $25 million fine for supporting the AUC with over a million dollars. A decent primary source can be found here. --72.75.108.135 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or here for that matter. -- 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's a sad fine considering they were contributing monetary funding to a listed "terrorist" group. I wonder why those involved were not jailed for such assistance since the US is fighting a "war on terror" and its supporters.
Sentrix (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Sentrix
