Jump to content

Talk:Dirty War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Modifications on whole article

Hello; The direction of the article needs to be re-oriented, as is based on wrong information; The number of armed guerrilla was around 300 people and at the beginning of 1977 it was already inactive; so there is no real war as it is presented on the article, nor 2 parts in conflict (the state terrorism motivations are already pointed out on the Operation Condor article).

This would need to re-order information, add new links, etc.; I can start if I can get help of other contributors.

(note: all this is already in parts of the article with their respective ref, the wrong information is contradicting parts of the same article -i.e. main targets of the Junta, number of victms of guerrilla, missuse of word war for describing the situation, etc., should I proceed to remove it?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustin6 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, the whole PLO Connection section, 'mid west terrorism training Montoneros', there is some other source to relay for any of this information? it seems at least unplausible -besides unrelated to the article- and is no mention to any of this on Montoneros article (or anywhere else as far as I know).

Thanks!Agustin6

Please Revise :)

I would like to respectfully ask that someone revise and/or rewrite this article. Granted, I do not study history, so perhaps much of this would make more sense to me if I were, but there are some issues with this piece of writing. There are some run-on sentences, some grammatical and punctuation errors, some ideas seem interjected in unrelated material, and the length of those paragraphs is frightening. I would do so if I knew this material, alas, I am just a student trying to make sense of it. If someone could take this beast on, I would be very appreciative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.19.144 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC) 

Hi! I could revise it with some help; My main issue is that english is not my first language, but I have some knowledge about history (and the spanish version of this and some other articles are very well written and documented, and absolutely different on the information on the subject; i.e. this article was about an actual war between the Junta and the guerrilla, which is the version of the facts of the Junta members -which are now in prison by genocide and crimes against humanity-, being that there never were a war but a genocide on civilian population). I started to make changes, but I need help, definitively. Agustin6

Avoid massive deletion of information

Erisie this article does need grammar fixed, but avoid the deletion of sourced information; if you got any problem or concern about any of the sources they can be replaced (i.e. I added Washington Post and Clarin as source, there is a lot of sources for these stated facts; jusy do not erased without reasons)

Agustin6 (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it is clear by that post that your English is simply not up to par for what it is required on an encyclopedic article. Apart from the fixed grammar and style, the overall tone of the article is incredibly biased towards a single political trend: there is constant mention of "neoliberalism" everywhere in an article referring to human rights abuses, and all sources that cite such a thing are biased towards one political perspective. Wikipedia strives for clear, concise information, not opinionated perspectives or political analysis. There are many, many other websites for such a thing these days. If you want a reason for which I deleted certain paragraphs in this article, it's because they simply do not belong in this particular article, regardless of sourcing.

All edits I made are in good faith: either to rework sloppy English grammar, mark unsourced quotes or statements, clean redundant phrases or links or eliminate information that does not belong in this particular article.

Your contributions to the article are appreciated, but let me be clear: THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. Or me, nor to any editor.Erisie (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Erisie As I said,

1- yes, the article does need grammar fixes

2- I didn't wrote this article, nor most of the edits I did; I'm mostly bringing information of the (enourmously sourced) spanish one.

3- about the neoliberalism, the reason of the whole operation was to ilegally take economic control of the region; are you familiar with Clarin newspaper? I added it as a source for this; If you dont know, Clarin is the bigger media group of Argentina; not only right-winged but also was complice/contributor to the Juntas (they gave them papel prensa, to take manage and control basically the whole production of newspapers on the country), so they are pretty far of being left-winged biased

I guess you read spanish language, take a look at the spanish version, or google about Martínez de Hoz (head and economical leader of the Junta), cause to call "neoliberalism" mentions biased here means a total lack of understanding about the point of the whole Condor Op.

4- If I did any edit and forgot to copy the source on it, or there is any source you have doubts about his reliability let me know; there is a lot of sources for every sentence I left on the article, I can replace any of them for another if needed; just ask.

Regards

Agustin6 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

[[User:Temruog|Temruog] All that data contradicts the sentence statement of the Trials and this reason for deletion was described in the edit section, I copy: 

The sentence of the Trials to the Junta states: "The subversives had not taken control of any part of the national territory; they had not obtained recognition of interior or anterior belligerency, they were not massively supported by any foreign power, and they lacked the population's support".[1] However, the supposed threat was used for the coup.

That information is either false or manipulated. Agustin6 (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Professor Terence Roehrig, in his book The prosecution of former military leaders in newly democratic nations: the cases of Argentina, Greece, and South Korea (Pg 42, McFarland & Company, 2001) estimates that of the disappeared in Argentina "at least 10,000 were involved in various ways with the guerrillas" So we clearly have a problem here, with the current Wikipedia pg presenting a sanitized version on the part of the actions of the Left Wing Guerrillas and their supporters hidden among the civilian population. The Left Wing Radicals were clearly a force to be reckoned with, even after the 1976 Military Coup--Temruog (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting of history on the part of Agustin6?

I had Reinserted well-sourced paragraphs from March 2017, that were removed without explanation. User Agustin6 has removed my good faith restorations of the missing paragraphs. My question to him is, is why is he rewriting history?Temruog (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, read above, I answered you there, I explained this when I did it; all that information contradicts other sourced information in the article (i.e number of dissapeared), and it was proved fake on the trials; I copied the statement above (and misleads the reader to think it was a actual war, which is the Junta's version of the history, again, proved false).

We may should ask other users to resolve this.

Agustin6 (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agustin6, please don't remove again important information transferred from Wiki pg to do with Montoneros. Thanks. PS. I think this pg needs to cover some of the important actions of the Left Wing Guerrillas. I really don't see much coverage at all, giving readers the impression that Argentina at the time had no guerrilla problem. --Temruog (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Temruog, that info was proved false in the trials, (I think there was about 300 people in guerrillas, again just read the statement) 

The sentence of the Trials to the Junta states: "The subversives had not taken control of any part of the national territory; they had not obtained recognition of interior or anterior belligerency, they were not massively supported by any foreign power, and they lacked the population's support".[1] However, the supposed threat was used for the coup.

Agustin6 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User Agustin6 is deliberataly trying to rewrite the article acording to his political belief, this is not a blog, please try to mantain wikipedia neutral. It looks that you are trying to hide the illegal activity and crimes of the guerrillas, and left-wing movements. Gonzaloges (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User Gonzaloges (talk) you try deliberately to show a non neutral POV, the data of the guerrilla is already there, his expansion to a new section has no relation with the Junta's plan, as stated in the sentence of the trials above; except you are trying to show the false teoría de los dos demonios.

The ilegal activity of the guerrilla was a police problem, is not my opinon but the sentence of the Trials.

If you want to, let's call other users to make a desition on this.

Agustin6 (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Historic interpretations

After reading again the spanish version of the subject, I think it should help and contribute to the neutral POV of this article if we add the historical interpretations of the conflict (since it’s still a highly controversial issue, at least in Argentina). I have no problem in traslating the contents from the spanish wikipedia. 

Gonzaloges (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Neoliberal policies of the juntas

This whole section is based entirely off the writings of Eric Toussaint who is a revolutionary communist (see, e.g. http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?page=imprimer&id_article=13763). Needless to say, is it beyond partisan.... 81.147.60.7 (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The section could do with some additional references. Currently it has two references one of which is taken from a book chapter written by Eric Toussaint and the other is a commentary which does not mention Eric Toussaint. I don't know Eric Toussaint so I looked at his wiki page which suggests he is a respected academic who is knowledgeable in the area so his views seem to be worth noting. Burrobert (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Dirty War

The name 'Dirty War' is very biased in Spanish (guerra sucia). It's used to imply that the measures taken by the dictatorship were harsh, but necessary, and not systemic but isolated 'excesses'. The entire article should be renamed or merged to something that is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:445:36E:AD37:1BF9:B509:88B3 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I completelly agree; I'm still not entirely fmailiar with the process of change an article's title so I ask whoever user read this to help on this to prevent mistakes. Thanks! Regards--Agustin6 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest "State terrorism in Argentina (1973-1983)". This is inclusive of the state terrorism under democracy. 2800:810:445:36E:C973:1CDE:33E6:BB84 (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure of the process to request a change of an article's title. If sources and discussion on this would help, let me know and I will gather some to make my case; there is a fair bit of scholarship on the language of the dictatorship which should make it clear that the title is biased. 2800:810:445:36E:C973:1CDE:33E6:BB84 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2800:810:445:36E:C973:1CDE:33E6:BB84 (talk), there is enough material on this subject since the Trials of the Juntas clarified that there was no war whatsoever going on, but a genocide over civilians (some of this information is already in the article); if it's too complicated to modify the title, may at least be clarified on the first lines of the article? Thanks --Agustin6 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The right way to call this article would be "Proceso de Reorganización Nacional" (National Reorganization Process) as called by the military junta, or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina. The term "dirty war" is not only biased, is offensive and goes against very well established scholarship on the subject. The term "war" refers to two sides entering in conflict; in this case it was a coup were the military took control over the State to illegally persecute civilians. Scann (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This article should be merged with this National Reorganization Process, and changed the name of the article to "National Reorganization Process". The so called "dirty war" that this article refers to accounts for the events that led to the military coup in 1976. Scann (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As people have been saying I think we should move the page to something more accurate and neutral in tone: I tried that but it was reverted by Wee Curry Monster so I guess we need to come to a consensus? My reasons for doing so are as follows:

  • The term 'dirty war' is inaccurate - it implies a war when the period was in actuality a period of state terror and genocide
  • The term is also biased - it is used by the perpetrators themselves as a justification for the crimes (explained in the page itself)
  • The term is not widely used in Argentina, indeed the spanish page for the same topic is named State terrorism in Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s

As such I believe we ought to move this page to a different Title, my suggestion is either "State terrorism in Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s" like the spanish wikipedia title, or "Epoch of the disappeared" (Spanish: Época de los desaparecidos) which how it's referred to in Argentina. -- Ihaasa 14:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Article Title

I have moved the article back to it's original title per WP:COMMONNAME. It's almost exclusively known as the Dirty War in the English language. A move on a controversial topic such as this should never have been made without a move discussion. WCMemail 19:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You probably should have reverted all the associates changed that were made. I have sone that. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 17:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


Dirty War → State terrorism in Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s – The name is biased and offensive, as it was the name chosen by the perpetrators, and it implies the existence of a war instead of simple state terrorism. This has been already discussed in this Talk page. The name "Dirty War" or Guerra Sucia isn't used by argentines, and sources in english also call it State Terorrism (source or example: [2])

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference El Estado de necesidad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=gsp

– Platonicbox (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It may be inaccurate but that is not the guiding principle. What it is called in Argentina is not really relevant either seeing as that will be in Spanish. It needs to be called what reliable sources in English call it. If it is called by different names then we can use a weighting method to determine here what is the best name to use. From what I can see though, it is very often called the Dirty War in English sources. If you can show otherwise please let us know by giving examples. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure the name dirty war refers to a sexual act. So I believe that it would be best for the name to be changed. Otherwise people will be confusing it with this vulgar act instead of a terrible genocide. I’m pretty sure state terrorism isn’t a sexual act, which would be less confusing than dirty war. Notblacklisted (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First ever input to Wikipedia, hope I get this right. Under the section titled "Human rights violations from 1976 to 1983" the link under the photo of Elizabeth Käsemann is to the page for Ernst Käsemann (her father?). I would have tried to correct this myself, but I'm new to the Wikipedia editing process I wasn't sure whether it was my role to make the correction, or how to actually make the edit. Canuck1959 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that Canuck1959. The link was to her father's page where she is mentioned as she does not appear to have a page of her own on the English wiki. I have changed the link to point to her German wiki page. You could have corrected the text yourself if you wanted. If you make a mistake another editor will let you know and possibly do it in a kindly manner (we are asked not to "bite the newbies"). Join in. You may even want to create a page for Elizabeth Käsemann Burrobert (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Thank you. I should have looked for Ms. Käsemann's page before posting.Canuck1959 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"United States-backed terrorism"

The first sentence states the Dirty War was a period of United States-backed terrorism. Is this really accurate? Yes, the outgoing Ford administration, notably Kissinger, backed it, but the following Carter administration did not. The historical records support this (as far as I am aware - please correct me if I am wrong). Since the terrorist state repression lasted until 1983, this first sentence may create the false impression that the US supported it throughout its duration. In any case, I do not see why the US backing, such as it was, necessarily merits to be mentioned in the first sentence. It is not clear whether it was so significant to change things (unlike in the Chilean case). The coup might well have happened regardless.

A political note: many of us who or whose families have suffered from US involvement in Latin America decry the destructive influence the USA has had on the continent. I'm no American apologist. Still, I don't think the US involvement in this case was so significant it ought to be mentioned in the very first sentence (unlike Pinochet, the Contras, Cuba's Batista...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapesofraph (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, that wording had really troubled me for a long time, so I’m glad I’m not the only one who felt that way. I completely agree, earlier incarnations of this article that featured the claim it was ‘United States-backed’, literally in the opening sentence, were placing far, far, too much weight on this connection, and in my opinion, it really seemed more about smearing America than accurately describing this period of Argentina’s history.
As you have succinctly pointed out, there is certainly no denying that some members of the outgoing Ford Administration (Kissinger in particular) did not object to the Juntas activities, or even tacitly supported them, along with selling arms and military spare parts to Argentina during 1977 and early 1978 (although it’s important to keep in mind that the US does so to many countries, so this in itself is not particularly noteworthy). However by mid 1978, in light of the increasing evidence of human rights abuses, the US position had swung firmly to opposition and had instigated an arms embargo.
like most things in history, it’s complex issue, neither black nor white, and therefore I feel the dedicated paragraph further down in the article is the correct place to address the issue of US support/ involvement, where the appropriate caveats can be included. It does not belong in the opening sentence. 2A00:23C8:268C:8801:198B:3D96:5752:F06F (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The title should be changed.

The title should be "State Terrorism in Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s (Dirty War)". It is important to understand that it was not only an armed conflict, to present it as such is erroneous and quite biased. The Argentine justice determined that it was not a war but that there was state terrorism. This is supported by most historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fechu93 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The themes and title are wrong

The article presents a historical bias. A process of state terrorism and political persecution is presented as an armed conflict, which is directly wrong, already demonstrated by different international organizations and by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentine Republic. I hope a quick restructuring of the article so that it looks more like its counterpart in Spanish, wich reflecting the true nature of the event. 181.110.58.198 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dirty_War/Archive_2&oldid=1255290941"