Talk:Dirty War/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Move

Shouldn't we move this into Proceso de Reorganización Nacional??? Is almost the same thing and both are inextricably related.

If nobody comments, I'll merge them together and then move in 2-3 days...

--Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it. The Proceso didn't consist of just the Dirty War, and I think some would argue that the Dirty War started before (while Isabel Perón was still nominally in charge and Rasput... I mean López Rega was involved with the AAA and so on). I think each article should be trimmed to avoid too much overlap with the other. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

But the way the article is worded leads you to believe that. How about making the original parts of this a big nice paragraph on "Proceso"? --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 02:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not just merge Proceso de Reorganización Nacional and Dirty War to form a new article, like History of Argentina (1976-1983)? Alr 22:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though I somehow fear the article will be almost exclusively about the Proceso. Besides, that and the Dirty War article are more or less "settled", linked from all over, etc. History of Argentina already links to them and to the Falklands War, I suppose. The conflict with Chile mediated by the Pope might also deserve a short article.

I'm thinking there might be some that consider that equalling (or implicitly equalling, with a redirect) "Dirty War" and "Proceso de Reorganización Nacional" is POV. The military might have done something good (though I'm hard pressed to find examples). Please, bear with me the next few days and I'll try to get drafts of the two articles, trimmed as I proposed; if you guys don't like them, then go ahead with the merge. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we are missing a BIG point here. Proceso de Reorganización Nacional was not only the title of the official military goverment, but also the excuse for the coup (To reorganize the crumbling nation). In this article, things such as the economical decitions and corruption should be present. On the other hand Dirty War reffers to the not-admited persecution and repression of civilians, by the military, under command of the governing body. If the information of both articles overlaps, then moving certain things to the other might be reviewed, but under no circunstances should they be merged in one single article. Mariano(t/c) 07:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I would leave the two articles as separate, linked items, as the "Military Process" that began in 1976 was just one phase of Argentina's broader civil conflict that included the military repression in Tucuman in 1975 and AAA operations from 1973 onwards. It is also important to relate the Dirty War to armed operations of anti-military guerrillas between 1969 and 1979. --Elgodosimp 14 January 2006

The term Dirty War has a special connotation and importance since it deal with the abuses of power during milatary rule, and even though it corresponds to the time of "Proceso.." it should be handed separatedly.

"Dirty War" is a very common term, as "years of lead" (used in Italy, in France, in Morroco, etc.) Proceso de Reorganización Nacional, on the other hand, is really "technical". And there is no reason for Wikipedia to endorse technical terms, which may also be - as in this specific case - propaganda terms. This is no "process of national reorganization", or as much as the "Third Reich" was supposed to last 1 000 years. Neither terms are really appropriate; maybe it should be moved to "Dirty War (Argentina)", which would be specific and would not obey to Jorge Rafael Videla's evil language. Tazmaniacs

In fact, it's "Dirty War" that is partial to Videla, and I suppose it relates to the need of the American governement to sell the crimes commited by their pet governments as part of a suposed "war". The "Dirty War" argument was the backbone of the military defense. They claimed they had been conducting a dirty war, but a war nonetheless, in wich they had had to come up with unorthodox methods, and then it was whitin their legal ability to carrying with those methods. As such, I very much take offense with this article being called "dirty war", even thought "dirty war" could redirect to the corresponding article, wich should be called "illegal repression". This change would not be POV since "illegal represion" was what the courts labeled it to be, and as such is inherently correct (inasmuch courts are who decide what is and what is not in agreement with the law). Moreover, it's the "Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo", and not "Madres de Plaza de Mayo", who claim for the dissapeared and appropiated children. "Mothers..." claim for the dissapeared themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.227.151 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

You are still mixing 2 different things: the military government, and the military repression. Even though one can be included in the other, they are not the same thing. For instance, the Proceso de Reorganización Militar brough a high economical debt to Argentina, while you can't say the same about the Dirty war. Mariano(t/c) 09:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comment. However, I'm sure some additional statements about Operation Condor, Guatemala, maybe Colombia's violencia, Uruguay and Paraguay dictatorships, and so on, could be included in the description of Dirty War. It is my understanding that this term refers to a period of Central & South American state terrorism characterized by anticommunism, starting from the late 1960s (Brazil) and continuing on until the end of the Sandinista government. Just as the Years of Lead, which was made to refer only to Morocco's year of leads, whilst the expression is used in Italy, in Turkey i think, and is common in French to design the European period characterized by left and right-wing terrorism (Italy, but also Germany and France), "Dirty War" is really a generic term which is not specific to Argentina. Tazmaniacs

I wouldn't merge them. "Dirty War" is a phenomenon that encompasses more territory than Argentina.-vap12

Merge

I believe the reasons for not merging are clear by now:

there has been more than one dirty war (in fact, in w:es Guerra sucia is a disambiguation page);
even in Argentina, the dirty war predated the beginning of the Proceso;
even during the Proceso, government's actions did not consist solely in the dirty war.

I thus propose removing the merge tag. Taragüí @ 11:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mariano(t/c) 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So do I - OC wa not Argentina-only- removing now.24.127.115.13 07:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dirty War and disambiguation

Content brought from talk page of WP:ARNB. Please continue discussion here, not there.

Given the date, I started to work on this complex topic and was lost in categories. Every article on the Dirty War, the Proceso and their participants has a bunch of these, which I think should point to one Category:Dirty War and sister categories/subcategories. I believe we should draw a nice category tree where we can make our Videlas, Galtieris and Astizes fit without so much wordiness. Also, the general categories of Category:Criminals don't include many suitable subcats. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of a category. Probably Category:Dirty War will be good enough for the time being. No need for Category:Dirty War victims or Category:Dirty War criminals (at least not yet). Mariano(t/c) 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Past discussion in Talk:Dirty War and a recent comment mention that "dirty war" is a common term in other places and that "our" article should be called Dirty War (Argentina). Now I'm all for preemptive disambiguation, but I haven't seen anything about the Dirty Wars of other LA countries. Is it presumptuous to guess that most people who look for "Dirty War" are in fact looking for the Argentine one? I'm bringing this up because the objection has been made and, if we have to move all links from one title to the other (tiring!), I don't want to have to do the same with the category too. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a North American with, I think, a fair layman's grasp of Latin American history. If I hear "Dirty War" without further qualification, I presume Argentina. Otherwise, I'd expect to hear it qualified (e.g. "Dirty War in Guatemala"). -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody has said anything else, I've gone and moved this to the new Category:Dirty War. Please help recategorize the rest of the articles belonging there. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it's "Dirty War" that is partial to Videla, and I suppose it relates to the need of the American governement to sell the crimes commited by their pet governments as part of a suposed "war". The "Dirty War" argument was the backbone of the military defense. They claimed they had been conducting a dirty war, but a war nonetheless, in wich they had had to come up with unorthodox methods, and then it was whitin their legal ability to carrying with those methods. As such, I very much take offense with this article being called "dirty war", even thought "dirty war" could redirect to the corresponding article, wich should be called "illegal repression". This change would not be POV since "illegal represion" was what the courts labeled it to be, and as such is inherently correct (inasmuch courts are who decide what is and what is not in agreement with the law). Moreover, it's the "Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo", and not "Madres de Plaza de Mayo", who claim for the dissapeared and appropiated children. "Mothers..." claim for the dissapeared themselves. Sebastián —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.227.151 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 December 2006.

Sebastián, please sign using four tildes (~~~~). Regarding the last part, you can correct the article if it's wrong; you needn't note it if it's clearly the case. About the name: the Wikipedia policy on article names is that we should use a form in common use, which is recognizable, natural, easy to link, etc. Moreover, "the current title of a page is not intended to imply that either the title name is preferred or the alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles." The term "Dirty War" is immediately recognizable to English-language readers, and it's the direct translation of the term used throughout the Spanish-speaking world to name that period of Argentine history.

Now, if there's a historian or a human rights group or a court ruling that explicitly disagrees with the use of the term, please show that, and we can add a note to the article explaining that "the use of the word 'war' is contested by XYZ on the basis that this was not a war, but illegal repression of dissidence combined with state terrorism; cf Theory of the two demons". In the trial of Miguel Etchecolatz a judge used the term "genocide", but AFAIK he spoke of the systematic workings of the Proceso, not of the Dirty War (which started earlier). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your answer, about the name, the fact is that "dirty war", in Argentina, is a politically charged term. It's not widely used, but in fact it's only used by the supporters of the "Proceso", being vocally opposed by the state, human rights groups, the courts, and the victims themselves. It is, in fact, widely used in english-speaking countries, but that is because that was what the Reagan administration called it, following such caracterization by the argentine junta.

As for the second part, regarding explicit disagreement with the use of the term, I can quote the final statements of the prosecution in the trial to the military junta (http://www.nuncamas.org/juicios/juntas/acusa.htm, in spanish) regarding the inadequacy of the term "dirty war", rejecting that there was a war, that the term "dirty" has some legal significance whatsoever, and that no exceoptional causes justified the disappearances. Moreover, and more importantly, I can quote the entire sixth part of the sentence in the same trial, specifically items b.1.3, a.1,a.3, 4 being extremelly relevant, as it analyzes the concept of "revolutionary war", and concludes there was no such thing, (in http://www.desaparecidos.org/arg/doc/secretos/conde.html, in spanish).

This is why I think redirecting "dirty war" to "illegal repression" or "state terrorism" would allow english speakers to access the article and, at the same time, use the correct (and, moreover, legally stated) name for such process. 201.250.221.25 17:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Sebastián

In general, being "widely used in English-speaking countries" is a strong reason to have it as a title. And you can't seriously claim that only defenders of the Proceso use the term "guerra sucia"; that's simply not true. There's no way to measure that, but as a sample, it's used in desaparecidos.org, in the Ministry of Education website, in derechos.org (reviewing the trial of Julio Simón), in this Clarín article, and in many other places. In some places it's used in "scare quotes", and in others it's explicitly stated that the term was favoured by the military; but like it or not, it has stuck. The title doesn't imply support for the view, and the title need not be an exact court-sanctioned description of what the article is about; "illegal repression" is so broad as to be useless, and "state terrorism" is a horribly loaded term; both things need qualification ("State terrorism in Argentina in the mid-1970s and early 1980s"?). Moreover, "state terrorism" may or may not cover the AAA and Montoneros (and I predict an endless and bitter argument over that).

I'd rather see other editors' POV in addition to ours. This article has a high profile and shouldn't be renamed lightly (or stay wrongly named). I notice a lot less activitiy lately, possibly because everybody's hot and/or on vacation. Please, let's wait a bit more. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 19:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

English-speaker USian here. First, this is a hard question, and I agree with Pablo-flores that we should go slow & generate more opinions than 2 or 3, and consensus. Second, my preliminary reactions to the discussion thus far: Tentatively, it seems best to me to use "Dirty War" as the article head for this (Argentine) article, because it has a specific and recognized meaning in English-speaking world. "Dirty War in X" should be used for non-Argentine dirty wars. I understand, and sympathize with, the concern about the historical provenance of the term "dirty war". But regardless of its historical provenance, it seems that's the most common term in the Eng-speaking world. BUT the historical provenance / naming concerns should be addressed right up front, with a sentence in the intro paragraph, and then more detailed discussion in the article. ... If there's significant usage of both "Dirty War" and other specific terms, then I think it would be reasonable to pick the one that has historically neutral provenance. ("Preliminary reactions" because I'm willing to be persuaded.... This is a hard question.) --lquilter 20:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sebastian for pointing us these quotes. Do not hesitate in editing yourself, as per Wikipedia:Be bold (I've had a quick look at the documents you've provided, but haven't got the time yet to become familiar with them). Saludos! Tazmaniacs 02:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Holiday Marking the Coup

Might be worth mentioning the recent creation of a holiday marking March 24, 1976 coup by the current Argentine congress, and the huge march that happened on that day March 24, 2006. Also the current efforts by Kirchner to challenge the 1990 pardon for former junta leaders.

The new holiday has been mentioned, but there's still some pretty delicate work to do regarding Kirchner's stance on the Dirty War, more than devoting just one paragraph to it. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean up tag (January 2007)

I've put a clean-up tag, this is an important subject which deserves better treatment. The article is not clear (too many individual additions, but things don't just sum up). I've corrected numbers, but it should start by clearly stating that 30,000 people were "disappeared" between 1976 and 1983 — and not only 11,000, as recensed in 1983 by the CONADEP (who only registered cases proved on an individual basis: as in Chile, because of the very nature of "disappearance", it is quite difficult getting each person's individual life and death registered). More than twenty years have passed between 1983 and today, and we should use today's numbers. Furthermore, beside simple copy-edit (in particular to go to the point and reduce words a maximum - average reader's concentration, especially on Wikis, is low), the article should not ignore the period between 1973 and 1976, starting by the Ezeiza massacre. Disappearances began before Videla, under Isabel Peron's rule, who has just been arrested in Madrid. Finally, it is a complete right-wing bias to claim that the Dirty War was a legitime offensive against guerrillas: most victims were not guerrilleros, and the Dirty War responded to a complex and active social environment, and made possible a neoliberal adjustment of the country which would not have been so easy if trade-unions and the global population wasn't terrified. This article needs the attention of a specialized historian: meanwhile, the most blatant mistakes must be corrected. Sources are welcome. Tazmaniacs 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You should provide sources first, then change the numbers. I was about to revert everything, but I saw there were sourced data. CONADEP said 9,000 and I've never heard otherwise; moreover, I wasn't aware that CONADEP had investigated the Peronist governments (I'm pretty sure they didn't). You shouldn't quote estimated numbers as facts, or speculate about the methods of CONADEP, or denounce that the article has a bias because it doesn't have your bias. The messy style can be corrected later; let's first concentrate on getting our facts right. Same goes for CONADEP. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)*

Rename (POV title)

I recall Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidelines here:

"Descriptive names - Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications. For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name."

The term "Dirty War", as one contributors here-above pointed out a few months above, is POV [Sebastian, in Talk:Dirty War#Category:Dirty War and disambiguation.]. It was used by the junta itself to claim that although "dirty", it was a "war", with the obvious "the end justify the means" saying in mind.

However, "war" is not a neutral term (the Algerian War was called by French government a "public order operations" until the 1990s, and you may see the Wikipedian conflict concerning the 2006 war in Lebanon against Hezbollah, a conflict which reflected the US media's late use of the word - while French media used the term "war" very quickly, showing different perspectives).

As the 1985 Trial of the Juntas pointed out, there was no state of war. The repression targeted civilians, not belligerents. Thus, law aspects differs. This is important, as minor officers involved in illegal acts would be judged "irresponsible" if they were in a state of war, when what is considered as a crime in peacetime is accepted by laws of war (those who read French or Flemish may see in the Belgian parliamentary report concerning the Belgian stay-behind network a juridical discussions about the laws of war, state of war and peace-time).

Finally, "Dirty War", although it seems in English to refers mainly to the repression in Argentina, is a generic term that may and is used in different circumnstances (Turkey, but even more broadly, the Algerian War was also qualified of being a "Dirty War", with, as far as I know, the intent of denouncing torture & crimes committed by the French Army - and not at all of justifying them!).

I guess the case doesn't need much more arguing. The problem now would rather be what title to choose? Human rights abuses during the Argentine military junta might be something to go on, as it is NPOV, and rather coherent with other articles such as Human rights and the United States. Furthermore, it would also envisions the creation of a broader article Human rights and Argentina, which could deal about this topics without being confined to this time-period (recent disappearances of Jorge Julio López, etc. - This article by Reporters Without Borders is one source to work on). Thanks for input, que le vayan bien a tod@s ! Tazmaniacs

Thanks for feedback, greetings! Tazmaniacs 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For such a contentious topic, and particularly where several different names have been mooted, a strong consensus is required before any change can be enacted. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This article started as the Dirty war in Argentina, and soon expanded to events in other countries. In Argentina Dirty War carries no POV, as it is the name used by everyone, including military and media. I don't know about its usage in other cases, but before a renaming, I would suggest splitting the article into several articles, or at least the Argentine case. --Mariano(t/c) 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Events in other countries": are you refering to Operation Condor? The Spanish Wiki also has a subsection dedicated to it (and much less details in the Condor article). Allusion to Condor is, ASFAIK, relevant, as many political refugees were killed in Argentina, and that these assassinations involved Condor (i.e. foreign intelligence agencies). About the title, the fact that "Dirty War" is a common name (both in Spanish & English) does not make it NPOV for that matter. See Julio Strassera's argumentation during the trial of the Juntas: this is what is at stakes. Concerning a split, this might be in order (we could in particular split the part concerning today's trials), but it is not a split between Argentine/non-Argentine content (what is not relevant to Argentina in the article?). Tazmaniacs 16:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME#Do not overdo it:

Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). When in doubt, check a mainstream reference work. A term can only be considered offensive if a verifiable, authoritative source can be quoted as citing it as such.

"Dirty War" is an offensive and misleading term (see for example comment above. Tazmaniacs 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, I mixed thought with desaparecidos.

The 'offencive example you use is from an anon user in a talk page, what does that have to do with the article itself? As someone already pointed out, the name was used also by the Military, then why do you considered offencive? Put another name to it, and people won't know what you're talking about. Again, not offencive + common names = no reason to change it. --Mariano(t/c) 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

? Are you refering to "dirty war"? If you are, that the statement was made by an "anon" does not make it less legitimate. It is a rational argument. Your argument, on the other hand, is fallacious (if it refers to the "dirty war"): "the name was also used by the Military, then why do you considered [it] offensive?" Precisely because it is a military term which claims there was a war justifying whatever means necessary. But there was no state of war, as Strassera shows. "Put another name...": yes, they do, the alternate title is perfectly understandable, and "dirty war" would of course have a redirect, so people would find it just as easily. Your conclusion "again, not offensive + common names= status quo" is therefore fallacious, as it is offensive and does not describe well the events. The title must be NPOV per Wiki guidelines above-cited. Tazmaniacs 20:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you completelly lost me. It is offencive for whom?? I thought you meant it's offensive for the Military! So you think it is offensive to people such as the Madres de Plaza de Mayo? I truly believe not. Both Proceso de Reorganización Nacional and Guerra Sucia are used by the Madres and other activist that opposed to the military governments. I truly don't understand why consider the title offensive. --Mariano(t/c) 20:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rather than "offensive to such & such", the problem is that it implies, uncorrectly, that there was a state of war (in the case, a civil war, allowing the government whatever means necessary — i.e. the "annihilation decrees"). This is against judicial declarations of Strasser. Furthermore, a "human rights article" would allow for consistency with Human rights and Argentina. Tazmaniacs 20:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In his dissertation, Strassera is just trying to make a point. He sais "Particularmente deleznable resulta el argumento de la "guerra sucia""; the argument on favor of the Dirty War, not the term Dirty War.

Wheather it was a war or not, there was a armed comfrontation between two parties, and that's why it's known as a war. In any case, that's the name under which is widely known to all parts involved. Or wou would move also Sudden death (sport) to Victory by the team first to unbreak a tie state with another team in a sports competition? --Mariano(t/c) 20:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the name of the article is, for people who don't know anything about the events, not neutral. On the other hand most of the people who do know about the events know it under the name -like it or not- "Dirty War". An encyclopedia should follow the conventions about a certain topic. I think it is for the science (history / historigrapy) itself to change the name.
For example, the natives of Greenland and North-Canada are now know as "Inuit". But 10-15 years (?) ago the term was Eskimo. I know "Eskimo" is derogative but it was the name people knew. I think an encyclopedia should not improve science itself, we are not doing research ourselves, so we are not leading here!
So in this case, how can we breng the opinions together? I think we should stick to the name "Dirty War" or "Dirty War (Argentina)" but we should be definately put in the article that the term was created by the militairy and there is not neutral. The quote about Julio Strassera says it all I think. About the "Proceso...", let's make it a part of this article or an other article linking it to "Dirty War" explaining the meaning of the terms and (in the "Proceso" article explaining the economic policy and maybe the cultural policy. Regards, Scafloc 23:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

MORE DISCUSSIONS ON REASONS FOR THE DIRTY WAR ARE REQUIRED

Only briefly does this article mention that the Argentine government was faced with communist revolutionaries operating in Che Guevera style guerilla warfare campaigns. What of the people who were afraid of these communist thugs? What about the many killed by them? The entire term "Dirty War" is non-neutral point of view - it is the point of view of communists. To the victims of communism throughout Latin America, this war was seen as a major campaign against a destructive and violent political ideology. And further - it was the communists who refused to wage their war in clear terms, and instead resorted to guerilla warfare. 1,500 dead is nothing in such a battle. Certainly, the Americans have killed far more civilians than that just in attempting to secure Baghdad. In reality, the number is so small because the Argentine people - then as now - reject communism, unlike the people of Iraq who are fighting for their freedom from foreign military powers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.214.69 (talk • contribs)

Who are the people of Iraq fighting for their freedom from? The Americans who ousted their beloved dictator and let them set up a democratic government--and then stuck around, suffering casualties--until it could stabilize? Yeah, fight that oppression! Bring back dictatorship and/or civil war! You're an idiot.

The article is about the Dirty War. If you whish to add more (sourced!) information to the other side of the war, do so at the appropiate articles (e.i. Montoneros), but avoid subjective comments such as "Argentine people - then as now - reject communism". --Mariano(t/c) 13:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Mariano but you're making little sense here. If the term "war" is accepted, it's only logical that it should encompass both sides of the conflict - never mind the weight you give to the word "conflict" within this context. The article shouldn't be partial to any one side. 190.48.117.21 09:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact the term "Dirty War" was crafted by the military, and I myself have argued with another person (whose ideology is, I guess, directly opposed to yours) that the term should be employed as the title of this article because it's common usage. But it's not "accepted". It wasn't a war, it was a series of violent guerrilla attacks on one side and a systematic massacre on the other. There are abundant academic sources showing the asymmetry of the conflict, and others covering the alleged ends of each side. It's been quite clear for years that the military used the guerrilla's violence as a pretext for a government programme that encompassed much, much more than the simple elimination of insurgency. Like Mariano says, if you have something to add, please cite reliable sources and avoid subjective comments. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically it might not be a "war" as wars go, but it certainly is a conflict, and as such the possible reasons for why the government did what it did should be discussed. Besides, what is the harm in talking about this issue in such depth? What is the goal of Wikipedia anyway? Giving readers the FULL view of a subject, or making sure that they only see one aspect of an event (thus learning of the event WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT)? From your above paragraph, you seem hardly the NPOV, impartial editor. Nothing in history is as clear cut as a mathematical fact, THAT'S WHY BOTH SIDES OF VIEW SHOULD BE EXPLORED (and it is YOUR OPINION, not a fact, that the military did this only as a pretext to get more power). Governments rarely do anything for a single reason, and when governments fight rebels, the conflict often seems very asymmetrical since governments usually have access to far more resources than guerrillas do. Does this mean then that the government didn't really feel a threat from the far left? Should they have, perhaps, let the leftist guerrillas win some battles just so, in the future, people will think that as the conflict was more "symmetrical" and that therefore maybe the rightists had more justification for doing what they did? Nobody who fights a conflict aims to be fair to the other side, and if any "asymmetricality" results from this this certainly doesn't mean that the winning side had no reasons to fear the other. I'm NOT sticking up for what the military did, and, maybe what you're saying is right. What I am sticking up for is wanting to have historical events on Wikipedia to be PRESENTED WITH CONTEXT, and, sorry, but trying to say that the Dirty War was just an attempt for dictators to seize power, while ignoring the ideological global battle between capitalism and communism that preoccupied more than half of the previous century is not only disingenuous, but also downright uneducated and stupid.68.164.0.155 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimates of casualties

I removed this assertion, since it's been lacking sources for four months now: "The guerrillas were allegedly responsible for killing about 1,500 people during this period, plus nearly 1,800 kidnappings". While such an estimate is certainly in order, it should just as surely not be made with any sources. If someone's got some WP:RS handy out there, that would be helpful. It would also be helpful if "the guerrillas" were not just named like that, but numbers precisely attributed to the ERP and the Montoneros (if possible). Thanks, Tazmaniacs 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting for no chance

The other, long name is ridiculous and verges on Newspeak. The elaborate detail of it belongs in the article, not in the name label for the entire situation. Wars can be dirty and secret and of the Roses and even about pigs. This is not a political issue, it's a colloquial one. jengod 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Such was not the stated opinion of Strassera during the Trial of the Juntas (see here). Beside, the discussion is at Talk:Dirty War#Rename (POV title). Tazmaniacs 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Dirty War Also

There ought to be a separate article about the Mexican dirty war. It does not appear anywhere that I can find in wikip, and it's topical considering the Echeverría's recent reprieve.

71.232.158.54 09:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it could make a nice subarticle of History of Mexico. I don't know if "Dirty War" is the more appropriate name though. Both English & Spanish Wikis are very short on this topic, in Spanish you have es:Movimiento estudiantil de 1968 en México, which corresponds with the English entry Tlatelolco massacre, and in English hardly a notice on Luis Echeverría's entry ("In a separate incident, he ordered the transfer of 15% of the Mexican military to the state of Guerrero to counter guerrilla groups operating there."). If you want to make a specific article, please WP:Be bold! Saludos, Tazmaniacs 15:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Guerrillas were responsible for 1,501 killings & 1,748 kidnaps

In 1980 a official publication Cronica de la Subversion en la Argentina (revised & updated edition), claimed that in 10 years of guerrilla operations (1969-1979) there were 1,051 killings killings, 1.748 kidnappings, 5,215 bombings and 45 attacks on military units. If in doubt please consult PARA NO OLVIDAR LA VERDADERA HISTORIA at www.libreopinion.com/members/jose_marmol/la_guerra_civil.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylikeadodo (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"An official publication from 1980" most likely is something the Junta endorsed to create the feeling that they were necessary to protect the people against the guerrillas.

And I'm not justifying their acts, but attacks on the military and 1000 kidnappings kind of pale against the 30,000 people the military itself massacred and kidnapped "to protect" people. Be thankful that the Junta stopped in 1983 - otherwise it would have run out of "people to protect" in a few years. In other words, stop defenting the government as if it was right in killing thirty thousand people. None of the sides was right, but most people didn't felt terrorized by the guerillas. They felt terrorized by the military.

Yes, but if the guerrillas won and went on to set up their own communist dictatorship, you can bet your ass that--as ALL OTHER COMMIE GOVERNMENTS HAVE DONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION--they would have gone on to purge even more people (counter-revolutionaries) than the rightists did. What the government should've done was let the guerrillas kill a lot more people, then there would be a lot fewer people out there now feeling sorry for the wonderful left-wing murderers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.0.155 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As the American book Guerrillas and Generals: The Dirty War in Argentina, by Paul H. Lewis (2001), shows that guerrilla in Argentina was strong and really was defeated after the military took power, in 1976. ERP was defeated even more fast than the Montoneros. In Brazil between 1964 and 1985, the left killed just about 120 persons, more than 12 times less than in Argentina just between 1971 and 1976. For the left, every crime is did by its victims.Agre22 (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

And this Argentine video: [Victims] shows a list of these hundreds of victims of Argentine terrorist left.Agre22 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

Operation Condor is also named a Dirty War.

Can this be mentioned in the introduction of the article?

The Dirty War in Argentina is just one dirty war of many. Operation Condor was a multinational dirty war, and operated in many nations, and used many similar methods. See this August 2001 English article from Le Monde Diplomatique: "Latin America: the 30 years’ dirty war" (see also: free access in French and in Portuguese).

See also: "Mexican 'Dirty War' Case Nears Court". 13 October 2007, Washington Post.

So "Dirty War" has now become a common name used by the English, French, and Spanish media; and probably in media in other languages, too. The name now refers to more than just the Dirty War in Argentina. --Timeshifter 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Google and Dirty War in Mexico

I have found many more articles on Google about the dirty war in Mexico. See:

The Google results include articles from the mainstream media such BBC, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, Knight-Ridder, MSNBC, etc..--Timeshifter 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC) jajaj q cosa !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.133.148 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The following is quoted from a review of Paul H. Lewis' book

I have studied the Argentine Dirty War for over 20 years, and if I were to recommend one book to anyone to read on the subject it would be this one. There are two things that Lewis does which really set this book apart from the literature on the subject so far. First, Lewis describes and makes sense out of all of the background starting with Peron that led up to the Dirty War. This really helps place the Dirty War in its proper context so the reader can comprehend why such terrible things occurred later. He then gives a full account of all the atrocities committed by the Argentine military. In this way he does not exonerate or excuse the Dirty War, but does make sense of why things happened the way they did.

Second, Lewis points out that there really was a war going on. The guerrillas were active, were powerful, were committing acts of terrorism and were seriously threatening to destabilize the Argentine state. A lot of anti-military sources try to portray the security threat posed by the guerrillas as a figment of the military's imagination. This was simply not true. There was a real war going on and Lewis shows that this was the case. Lewis does not excuse the ways the military chose to deal with the guerrilla threat, but does explain why rational and normal men would choose to commit such horrorific acts. In their mind they were in a desperate life and death struggle, and they acted accordingly. In retrospect they made some very bad choices, but Lewis helps explain how it all seemed rational and necessary at the time.

This book is balanced, honest and cuts through a lot of the cherished popular myths. It is fair to both sides of the conflict. Finally it is well written and flows well. I got through it in two days. This book will become a classic text on the Argentine Dirty War. --78.129.158.35 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I also read this book. And this video: [Video 1,000] there's more than 1,000 Argentine victims of terrorist left. In fact, Jorge Rafael Videla never wanted a coup. He did a coup to save his country from Left terror and anarchy.Agre22 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

NPOV? what NPOV?

I just went through the whole discussion and its really interesting to read how everybody talks about POV and NPOV while all they are doing is trying to impose their own side of the story. Most of the article itself is completely biased as well as the comments in this discussion. Not only that. but also the lack of sources is noticeable. There is very few citations of sources for many of the comments made by all users. And when somebody tries to bring up a different view of the issue, he gets attacked by the users by all users suggesting, in a very contentious tone, that if he has anything to add, he should added (sourced!) to the article. This said by someone who has done nothing else but blatantly try to impose his side of the story through out the whole discussion without backing up most of the information he gives. You have all taken this article to just promote your hatred views of what happened during the “Dirty War”. Nobody has any intention of objectively discussing the whole story of this very obscure part of Argentinean history. But the reality is that there were two sides involved in this conflict and this article should be about informing what happened with no regard for ones own feelings. You can use “El Juicio a las Juntas” and Strassera’s arguments all you want. But we all know how things are in Argentina. It has always been about politics. It was politics then and it is politics know when the Kirchner’s raise the human rights flag when they never cared about it before they got to the presidency. I think this article is out of control and lost all logic and consitency. It should probably be deleted and started again from scratch Tiempodepaz (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiempodepaz,

The Dirty War happened quite some time ago. If we (the contributors of wikipedia) want to make a good article about it we need references and sources that can be checked. I realize that there are differences in opinion about this subject and that these differences can lead to frustration but talking about "your hartred" does not help.

Regards, Scafloc (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts August 2009

I agree JustinAKlunz that I may have gone over the top with contributions.I'm fairly new at this so I guess I'll be needing your help.My main interest are the military operations of both sides.I promise also to include in the near future overlooked incidents where the militaries committed excesses and fractiside.I don't agree with the military generals of that era for they were cold hearted brutes that turned a blind-eye to the excesses being committed and there were many.But then again, I in a way believe the guerrilla groups provoked the military into reacting the way they did.The same happened in Algeria.I am hoping to make the point.British journalist John Simpson said this in a book I read a few week's ago.I will obtain this book to maybe include his commentaries?. Anyway I admit I didn't include the necessary sources in some of the contributions I made.I was getting very fatigued after many hours.What got me started in this is was a taxi trip I took home last week after a few drinks after work. The driver was an old man from Argentina and we talked about the dictators in Argentina that I had read in the book of John Simpson and he told me to check my facts, that he was an honest immigrant and not a fugitive and that Argentina had nearly gone into a civil war.I was bored on the weekend so I started investigating.I hope you now understand me.--91.121.139.161 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you read WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS as a starter for 10. There is a fair amount of partisan literature on both sides, you need to be careful about the sources you quote and to balance the comments of both sides. The main reason for my revert was that the changes you'd made were unbalanced and skewed the article in one direction. You'll note I changed the title, we discuss edits not editors. I suggest you also sign your contributions with ~~~~ and I've formatted your input to remove the formatting errors. Registering a username is also a good idea, I would normally have commented on your personal page but with IP editors this is more difficult due to dynamic IP allocation. Regards, Justin talk 09:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction cleanup

The introduction of this article was a complete mess. There were supperimposed edits that left an incoherent, disorganized, poorly sourced text. I tried to take as much useful material as I could from it and re-order it, adding references when needed. There was also an obvious problem -for anyone who checked the sources and knows a bit about the subject- about the neutrality of the sources, many of them directly from organizations that openly defend Videla's dictatorship or call Perón a dictator, which he clearly wasn't, regardless of the opinion the editors may have of him and his government. I cleaned up these and suggest paying attention about possible future reversals of the edits, trying to put back this old, partizan sources. I left untouched and added more of the ones that come from relevant books and the mainstream media, and also added one from the spanish wikipedia, which has a pretty good (although long) article on this. I also put a warning saying that there's a "citation needed" in a claim I added in the introduction, because I know this source exists and is widely available but right now I couldn't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.182.13 (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You deleted the part about the high-profile bomb attack on the Sheraton Hotel in Buenos Aires in which North American citizens were killed and wounded (it was an online source). In your attempt to convince us all that there were 30,000 disappeared you allowed no debate when you chose to ignore the online source in the form of the Guardian newspaper were a lesser figure of 9,000 was being mentioned as possibly being the real number of disappeared. The highter figure of 30,000 disappeared that you champion along with the smaller figure of 9,000 disappeared that you dispute but others believe in, was already there in the introduction prior to your edits, but you chose to promote the higher figure whilst making no mention of the smaller figure (although you left the Guardian newspaper source so as to avoid a backlash). You rewrote the part (in order to hide the fact?) in which Amnesty International towards the end of the disappearances was reporting at the time of writing that about 15,000 Argentines had either disappeared or been detained in clandestine detention centres (the source was an online TIME magazine article from 1979). Argentine human right groups countered at the time that the real number of disappeared was closer to 12,000 but you erased this important piece of information. You diminish the crimes of the ERP/Montoneros by making them appear to be Robin Hood type operations necessary to steal much needed guns and cash from the wallets of the fallen officers, when in fact they were deliberate cold blooded assasinations. Also in you edits you insinuated that the disappeared were practically all innocent civilians "writers, artists, students, ..." and made no mention of the fact that among the disappeared were a large number of left-wing guerrillas and supporters (by their own admission the ERP/Montoneros admit that 10,000 of their fighers are among the disappeared). You deleted the part in the intro where it was mentioned that there were 13,500 victims of left-wing terrorism along with its proper source claiming that this is a dubious source that is pro-Videla, when it is a human rights organization aimed at defending the rights of those kidnapped, killed, wounded or tortured by the ERP/Montoneros guerrillas. You champion your figure of 30,000 disappeared but ignore the 13,500 Argentine victims of left-wing terror in this period that are ignored by their current government. --91.121.139.161 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the mention of the Sheraton because it has no place in the introduction, it's just a specific attack with I can't see why it should be mentioned in particular, it's like mentioning a specific AAA operation or whatever, it really makes no sense whatsoever in what is already a long introduction. Also, the source, as I explained, was disastrously inaccurate (calling the attackers "supporters of the ex dictator Peron"), therefore hardly trustworthy. The fact that the guerillas made regular attacks is mentioned already, although it can be reworded for better accuracy, no doubt about that. The 12000, 15000, etc. figures talked about in the middle of the dictatorship are just that: guesswork done in hard conditions, it's not surpising at all that those numbers would be incomplete, because you can't get information about everyone in the middle of a dictatorship. The fact that by 1979 12000 to 15000 people were publicly known to be missing already discredits the 9000 figure, which is anyway obviously wrong if you consider the fact that Argentina has already payed indemnizations for more people than that. Please see here, from a completely mainstream newspaper as La Nación (a right wing newspaper, too, so as to eliminate any suspicion of left wing bias), how the own army admitted by 1978 (that is: only in the second year of the 7 year dictatorship) that they had kidnapped or murdered 22000 people: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=791532 Furthermore, the statement about there being 13500 victims of left wing violence is based on... a source you provided that comes from an organization that systematically defends the military dictatorship and its torturers, asking for its freedom, which is like using stormfront as a source for the number of dead people in the holocaust. There is no place for that in wikipedia, according to the site's own rules. Also, you say that I made no mention of the left wing armed groups... which is wrong, since I mentioned them in the first line of the re-structured introduction, as evidence in the article's history. Please read before complaining. Finally, wikipedia is no place for political debate. I don't care what is championed by who, and your opinion of Argentina's current government is irrelevant to this article's contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.182.13 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I offer to help here. But let us remember that when that Chilean agent came across information saying there were 22,000 disappeared, that number obviously included around 9,000 PEN (Poder Ejecutivo Nacional) disappeared (their families didn't know if they were dead or alive after their abductions) who later emerged alive and well from the military concentration camps. Let us not forget that one of Argentina's top post war presidents (Menem) was considered a disappeared for several years but he later governed Argentina well into the late 1990's. Also with regards to the Sheraton bombing it seems to have been an operation aimed at grabbing attention and it certainly made it into to the news worldwide, so I guess it is an important piece of information such as the massacre that took place at Trelew, when considering the targets were foreigners. Maybe what the first paragraph is missing is a bit of info about the number of concentration camps that existed in Argentina and the missing babies.--217.23.3.76 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Best option to read about the Dirty War

The best option to read about the Dirty war that I ever read is the book "Guerrillas and Generals". You can read this book on this site: [Google Books]. I also read three Argentine books about this same subject, but I thought that "Guerrillas and Generals" is the best of four book that I read about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Present editwarring

I was pinged on my talkpage to offer my two cents. The admin's edit summaries say he's invited the other editor to the talkpage, but the fact is, nobody has substantially added to the talkpage in months. The best way to start a discussion is to actually start the discussion. Please assume good faith, breathe, and remember this is a heated topic which we can't solve on Wikipedia. What we can do is to give a reasonable, fair and balanced account of what happened. For this to be dirty and a war at once takes both sides. Or is that tango? ;) Wow, a topical metaphor for once! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But it wasn't a war, and assuming so would be POV. Kazu-kun (talk)

Kazu-kun, you rise a very interesting point. I invite you to introduce a section about the debate about this. But you must understand that this article is named as such because "Dirty War" is arguably the most common name in English-language sources. If your intention is to rename the article, please open a new topic at this talk-page and present reliable sources stating that this is not the most common name in English literature. Thanks, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The FBI?

Do you really expect us to believe that the CIA left the FBI, of all people, on their turf? The FBI's external activities, while not non-existant, are probably minimum. It's obviously that the person writing this didn't really know which institution does what and (s)he just threw in some initials to get across the idea that "the Yanks did it". Well, while it might be true and it probably is with regards to the CIA, I seriously doubt the FBI was involved. 1. It's the CIA's turf, they, wouldn't let the FBI agents get involved. 2. The FBI agents have no training for it. Counter terrorism and counterespionage are NOT quite the same thing clandestine intelligence, psychological warfare, provocation, stay-behind operations etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

sections on "involvement" need to be more specific

"Cuban involvement" needs to read "Cuban involvement with guerrillas," while US involvement needs to read "US involvement with military junta" or something like that. As is, the titles are unclear and both parties could be associated with either belligerent. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

footnote 22 seems wildly off?

The number of victims of leftwing terrorism seems quite out of the ballpark based on what little I've read, and the footnote source seems recognizably political and not all that convincing. There is quite a heated numbers battle going on now in Argentina over the numbers killed by either side. The typical numbers are 20,000 or so by the military, 600 or so by the Left -- but if the numbers are more like 16,000 and 16,000, as many on the Right would have it, that changes the conversation considerably and one can see why they would push for that. For a seemingly disinterested perspective, I recommend for a start Richard Gillespie, "Political Violence in Argentina: guerrillas, Terrorists and carapintadas" in Martha Crenshaw, Terrorism in Context.

I use this to discuss with my students the dynamic nature of Wikipedia and how they should use it, so in some ways hate to lose the example. But really, it seems very suspect to me and should probably be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.29.17 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of "infobox military conflict"

Why is this infobox used?

During the period there were practical no battles or engagements between different armed forces. Using the a military conflict template seems to indicate that this was a "regular war"; two sided fighting. But that is misleading; the military turned against civilians. That is no war; that is plain terrorism. The same applies for the bombings by the left-wing Montoneros; no war but terrorism. So I propose to remove the use of the template in this article. Scafloc (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Guerrilla warfare is already a type of war. And yes, they "turned against civilians", because the guerrilla war compensates its lack of standard military strength by having soldiers who conceal themselves into the common civil society, made a surprise attack, then hide back. Cambalachero (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For a guerilla war I would not object the use of the template. I guess that this means that you want to create a new article for the guerilla war? That sounds like a good idea. For the article about the Dirty War itself the military conflict template is not neutral in thus it should be removed. Scafloc (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Article's view should be changed

The title "dirty war" was created by those who state that an actual war took place in Argentina. This view is completely inaccurate, as what happened was State Terrorism, understood as illicit activities sponsored and executed by the state with the people's resources, among them non-dissappearance of students, workers, trade unionists and pregnant women whose children were again, illegally, taken away and "adopted" . Resistance groups and dissident groups were minorities, and although some of them may be seen as involved in criminal activities, that does not match the state. Their illegal activities are those of a criminal, while the state is something completely different. So I think that the concept of "dirty war" should be reviewed and properly stated.

http://www.me.gov.ar/efeme/24demarzo/quees2.html O'Donnell, Guillermo (1982). El Estado Burocrático Autoritario. Buenos Aires: Editorial de Belgrano. ISBN 950-07-0939-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compuclases (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

All of this is true. This is an exact definition of what happened in Argentina during this years. I believe the article reflects this aspect of the dirty war and in no way transmits the idea that it was a war between two equal and legitimate sources. It was state sponsored terrorism. In conclusion "Dirty War" is none the less the standard term for this period in Argentinian history. I study Hispanic Literature in an M.A. program and this is the term that is used when speaking about what happened in Argentina. Also the book Latin America: An Introduction (2011) by Gary Provost and Harry E. Vanden, published by Oxford Press also uses the term. This book is college textbook for a Latin American Civilization course. :Markgerard2020 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it was a war. It is correct that it was not a Conventional warfare (a state against another), but to point that and claim it was not a war works on the misleading assumption that conventional warfare is the only type of war that exists. The Dirty war is a classic example of Guerrilla warfare, a well-known type of warfare. Yes, of course that the victims were "students, workers, trade unionists and pregnant women", that's the point of guerrilla warfare: guerrilleros are not soldiers wearing a military uniform and living at military bases, they are common people, countering the superior military strength of their enemy with stealth. They live as common people, concealing their allegiance to the guerrilla, made surprise attacks, and return to the safety of their anonymity. All guerrilla wars are like that. The Dirty War is no exception; in fact the internal codes of the Montoneros encouraged their members to keep their jobs to avoid suspicions.

Were there crimes? Surely, but not as much as thought. To say that thousands of peoples died sound one way; to repeat that and point as well how many members did they Montoneros claimed to have at the peak of their power make it sound completely different. Of course that there was a dictatorship, but all countries at war live under dictatorial conditions, unless they can manage to keep the war contained at very distant frontiers. Cambalachero (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea that it was a "war" is extremely minor in Argentina and in the bibliography. Cambalachero explains the point of view of the dictatorship and that is not neutral.--Trevor Goodchild (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was "the point of view of the dictatorship", which was the government, then it wouldn't be a minor opinion we could disregard. However, that's not the case, there are several sources with no links to the government that consider it a war.

ERP: "Que en el proceso de guerra revolucionaria iniciado en nuestro país, nuestro partido ha comenzado a combatir con el objeto de desorganizar a las fuerzas armadas del régimen", "Desde hace ya más de tres años (1970) el pueblo argentino ha iniciado un proceso de guerra revolucionaria cuyo objetivo final es la derrota del capitalismo"
Montoneros: "Que nadie lo dude: la Argentina está en guerra. Una guerra que enfrenta al pueblo con sus opresores, y en la que se enfrentan también concepciones opuestas en lo político, en lo militar, en lo social, en lo económico y en lo cultural", "Esta guerra, además como toda guerra, se rige por un principio básico y elemental: proteger las propias fuerzas y eliminar las del enemigo"
Luis Labraña (former montonero): No nos hagamos más los pacifistas a conveniencia. Aquí hubo una guerra. Pese a lo que digan los vendedores de memoria. Y quienes lo niegan faltan a la verdad y ofenden la convicción y la valentía de quienes murieron en ambas trincheras. Negar la guerra, a la cual nos referíamos continuamente en nuestros documentos como 'guerra revolucionaria, popular y prolongada', es hacernos quedar como niñitos estúpidos de un jardín de infantes"
Senator Culasso Mattei: "La argentina no soporta más esta guerra no declarada"
Deputee Ciali: "Estamos en una guerra contra el enemigo común. [...] Y nuestro ejército, un ejército de paz y trabajo también ha sido golpeado crudamente por la guerrilla"
Justice: "En consideración a los múltiples antecedentes acopiados en este proceso y a las características que asumió el terrorismo en la República Argentina, cabe concluir que, dentro de los criterios de calificación expuestos, el fenómeno se correspondió con el concepto de guerra revolucionaria"

And there are several more. Should I continue? Cambalachero (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

However, these in now way are enough to imply that the name should be changed. La "La guerra sucia" as a wrote before is the standard name of these time period although not for the reasons that Cambalachero states. To consider this conflict a type of civil war between guerrillas and the military junta is not accurate. It was state terrorism in large part against innocent non-violent people. Markgerard2020 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 04:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Time We Got Rid of the POV Message

The term Dirty War may well have been coined by the junta in an effort to cloak systematic political assassination in the mantle of civil war, but it is now the consensus term for the historical period. It is clear from disagreements over whether Dirty War should apply to opposition tactics (as well as the junta's conduct) that any original propaganda value is long lost. I propose we not fail to credit Wikipedians with the ability to discriminate between prevailing usage and original intentions.

It has never been in dispute that the Argentine junta used the country's military resources in order to kill its own citizens. While Infobox Miliary Conflict does nothing to legitimise genocide, the box is gone, and rightly so--one would never apply Infobox Miliary Conflict to the Kent State Massacre.
Patronanejo (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; in any case it's stale, as there's no ongoing discussion. AV3000 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation missing

What is the citation for " There were 16,000 victims of left-wing terrorism in Argentina"? This is my first Wikipedia post so I help I am in the correct place. Steve J 200.63.254.165 (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Dirty War Pg Now Reveals In The Intro The Aims Of The Guerrillas

For too long now there was only mention in the first few lines of Operation Condor and the Human Rights Abuses on the part of the Argentinian military junta, giving readers in the first few instances clearly a one sided account. Maybe a month or two ago a contributor added the lines in which it was made clear that the Dirty War was also a period that saw left-wing guerrillas waging war in order to establish a socialist regime, several years before the military coup of 1976. Unfortunately someone keeps removing the info about the guerrillas waging urban and guerrilla warfare to instal a socialist government that are backed up by sources, and instead inserts the following:

...and urban and rural guerrilla warfare aimed at left-wing guerrillas, political groups, and anyone perceived to be associated with socialism.

This is clearly a manipulation of facts for the sources in question (Robben and Bouvard) and an online newspaper article available for all to see (GUERRILLAS STILL INTENT ON SOCIALISM) are talking about the violence of the left wing guerrillas and their political aims. The sources in question are not talking about the right wing death squads or the counterinsurgency campaign of the Argentinian military and police.

The vandal or vandals in question, are also trying to hide the fact that the current Pope has gone on record criticizing the violence of the left wing guerrillas. Instead they write:

Recently, the election of Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis has caused controversy for his alleged failure to challenge and alleged collusion with the National Reorganization Process during his time as the Jesuit Provincial superior of Argentina.

As you can see with their rewriting of history no mention is made of the fact the pope criticized the left wing guerrillas even though the accompanying source clearly mentions it.

I hope fair-minded Wikipedians can help keep and eye on this page and prevent these myth makers from getting their way.--SIUHM (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for rewriting history as you seem to think, we're an encyclopedia. The text was perfectly neutral till you came along. There are plenty of fair minded wikipedians around and yes they will fix POV editing like yours. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Pope should be mentioned in the lead. See WP:Lead fixation Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As I once pointed in the tag above the article, the problem with this article is that it has no chronological order, it jumps at will between earlier times, 1976, 1983, present day and back. It should have a clear flow: first X thing happened, then Y, this caused Z reaction, and so on. There was a present-day reaction to an old event? Don't mention it with the event, mention it at a later section that reaches that time period. The same goes for the lead, which should be a summary of the information detailed in the article, but keeping a clear flow as well. Cambalachero (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A generic article on the 'Dirty War' in general is overdue

The term has long been adopted to describe any form of internal, 'low intensity conflict' where a state employs Counter-insurgency measures against the own population causing massive human rights violations. This is reflected by the disambiguation page, which leads e.g. to dirty wars in Morocco, Northern Ireland ("The troubles"), and Mexico. See also the category 'Dirty War' even providing a nice definition from Princeton University. Also, the Algerian war and the Algerian Civil War have often been described as Dirty Wars, let alone the various other conflicts and 'civil' wars in Latin America such as in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1970s and 1980s. In the German Wikipedia, there is a generic article "de:Schmutziger Krieg" covering the Dirty War in general. A considerable number of the sources are English, for the brave... Last not least, mention the documentary film and book 'Dirty Wars' by Jeremy Scahill about all the current nice little US-led conflicts worldwide. As English is not my mothertongue, I dare not start it, and am only suggesting this here. Do you agree that such an article makes sense? [Special:Contributions/217.7.150.122|217.7.150.122]] (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

For an argument-based proposal with a clear request for feedback and debate, this reaction is less than I expected, to put it mildly. Don't you talk to IPs or what? 217.7.150.122 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dirty War

The name "Dirty War" was never used by the Argentinian Government. Please, unless you can find a quote to prove me wrong, change it, because it was a name never heard over here until Obama said it a few years ago. And FYI, it was not a war at all. Unless you call it a war when the military siezes the power by force and starts killing civilians because of their political views and to steal their goods and money, calling them "terrorists" just to pretend to be the good guys. Btw, the victims were way over 15.000~30.000; 60.000 civilians (even teenagers during "La noche de los lápices") are still missing, children of those missing thousands -born in captivity- still have no idea who they truly are (since they were even sold to regime supporting families), tons of unnamed bodies are still found in common unmarked graves (not even graves, in fact, just pits) and many of them were thrown away from military planes, either dead or alive, into the Atlantic Ocean. THAT is not a war... not even the dirtiest of them all.

"Dirty War" is, in fact, a term used to describe a war between the military (not siezing the power, but working for the constitutional government) and a civilian paramilitary organization.

So "dirty war" is not the same as "State Terrorism" which is what happened in Argentina.

As far as I know, the only place in which they call "dirty war" to what happened in Argentina between 1976 and 1982 is in the USA, and since it was just a piece of the Operation Condor (organized and sponsored by the USA) it makes sense to make it "a war" over there. Please correct the article.

And once more, the Argentinian government never used the name "dirty war". What's more, if the words "guerra sucia" were ever uttered by some member of the terrorist military junta in power by then, they cannot be called "the Argentinian Government", because their regime was against the Argentinian Constitution. They were not a government, but a task force sent by (among others) Heinz Kissinger and the CIA, to take over Argentina as they had already done in many Latin-American countries (like Chile in 1973 when they bombarded the contitutional president, Salvador Allende), as instructed in the USA-controlled Panamanian School of the Americas.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_sucia

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorismo_de_estado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.218.118 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. This entire article is very misleading and should be redone from the scratch. 201.255.182.1 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Even Encyclopedia Britannica refers to the political violence of the 1970s in Argentina as a "Dirty War". Take a look at all the major books published in the 1980s and 1990s and in the last few years (like Disappearing Acts: Spectacles of Gender and Nationalism in Argentina's Dirty War, Behind the Disappearances: Argentina's Dirty War, Argentina's "Dirty War": An Intellectual Biography, and Guerrillas and Generals: The Dirty War in Argentina) and you will see that authors refer to the period as a "Dirty War". Also Time Magazine, Los Angeles Times, BBC, New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, National Geographic, etc, refer to the turbulent 1970s in Argentina as a "Dirty War". There were many armed confrontations with the ERP and Montoneros guerrilla forces operating in Argentina. The ERP had in fact taken over a large chunk of a province in northern Argnetina in 1975 as this Wikipedia page reveals. Over 60 servicemen of 10,000 deployed in the counterinsurgency campaign in northern Argentina were killed that year (20 officers, 7 NCOs, 20 army conscripts, and 15 from other services). These numbers are proportionally higher in relation to the 150,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and their 4,484 killed between 2003 and 2011.--Toughonatightrope (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of having confrontations or not (which, in fact, must be taken with a grain of salt since those numbers come from the Juntas or the AAA themselves): the name implies that the actions were mainly against guerrilla forces, which is false. Statistics show that the majority of the dissapeared and tortured were factory workers and students; and the actions of the Junta prove too that their aim was not to wage war, dirty or not, against the guerrillas; but to terrorize the general population in order to impose their economical and political paradigm. This is thooughly documented and acknowledged in Argentina; it's sad to see how the rest of the world still clings to this term, and by that, to the Theory of the Two Demons. (Sorry for not signing in; I don't have my account data at hand ATM)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dirty War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202155535/http://www.elsigloweb.com:80/portal_ediciones/246/portal_notas/10448-ex-soldados-exigen-una-pensin to http://www.elsigloweb.com/portal_ediciones/246/portal_notas/10448-ex-soldados-exigen-una-pensin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Greater Explanation of Falklands War

It would help the reader better understand the fall of the Junta system is the section of the Falklands War was discussed a little more. I would suggest adding citation for the death toll for both the Argentinians and the British to show how the Argentinian people may have reacted so negatively to the War. I would also show the lack of Aggression on the part of the Argentine military's ground war after capture of the islands to show also how this may have pushed the people of Argentina to the tipping point of patience with the Junta government.King0979 (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That goes off-topic, the war between Argentina and Britain is in no way related to the war between the military and the terrorist bands. The natural article to discuss how did both things influence the history of the junta is National Reorganization Process. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Malvinas War fiasco is what made the junta resign and call for elections, so King0709 is not as wrong. Btw, you are just too "gorila", Cambalachero... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.178.218.118 (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again: there was no war, Cambalachero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.58.24.129 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Terminology

Excuse me, "hunting down left-wing guerrillas" is "state terrorism"? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC) YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we follow the sources. See WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on Dirty War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The Dirty War .... was the name used by the Argentine Military Government...."

Excuse me? Of course it wasn't - even this article tells us the term was coined in the United States and is considered insulting in Argentina (whichever side you were on). This opening sentence needs to be completely rewritten.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dirty War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140224233740/https://www.elortiba.org:80/pdf/Memoria-de-ex-presas-y-presos-politicos.pdf to http://www.elortiba.org/pdf/Memoria-de-ex-presas-y-presos-politicos.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140224233740/https://www.elortiba.org:80/pdf/Memoria-de-ex-presas-y-presos-politicos.pdf to http://www.elortiba.org/pdf/Memoria-de-ex-presas-y-presos-politicos.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://poundpuplegacy.org/node/33388
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dirty War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305133315/http://www.elsigloweb.com/portal_ediciones/246/portal_notas/10448-ex-soldados-exigen-una-pensin to http://www.elsigloweb.com/portal_ediciones/246/portal_notas/10448-ex-soldados-exigen-una-pensin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Section length

Does anyone else get the impression that this article is a bit too segmented? There are twenty-two non-reference sections, and 19 of these have no subsections whatsoever. It seems like this should be reduced significantly by either merging sections or reducing them to subsections. Rhydic (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Military Conflict Infobox really not appropiate

The military conflict infobox, by virtue of its own structure, is certainly not neutral, as it adopts the far-right position of claiming that the systematic plan to kidnap, torture and kill up to 30000 people was a "war" in which there were "belligerent sides". It takes the completely debunked position that all victims of forced dissapearance were part of left-wing armed groups. It says that the dissapeared were not part of Argentina, since THE COUNTRY ITSELF is listed as a belligerent part AGAINST the dissapeared. It claims that the US was supporting the military government against, I suppose, the dissapeared, even though Carter-s government was one of the first in denouncing what was happening... And all of this only in a sidebar. The problem is that, as is noted at the start of the article, "Dirty War" was the term used by the military junta to describe and justify its own actions of state-sponsored terrorism and not a proper description of the facts. The inclusion of a "military conflict" Infobox the results in the article taking the side of the military junta apologists. Jsgoyburu (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the term section

On the same note, the sources on the section "Criticism of the term" don't say at all what the text claim they say. Moreover, the term "dirty war" has a history in Argentina as told by Horacio Verbitsky in this article in spanish "The expression "dirty war" was coined by members of the Military Junta to justify repression, as recalled by the former president of the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Tom Farer, in an interview with the journalist Clarín, Alberto Amato" and "From the persecuted militancy the same locution was used, to describe the methods of illegal repression. "History of the Dirty War in Argentina" is the title of the first report I wrote in 1976 about the clandestine concentration camp that operated at the School of Mechanics of the Navy and was distributed by the networks of the Clandestine News Agency , ANCLA. Once the dictatorship was over, I reformulated the phrase to dispel any ambiguous reading and for years I wrote "dirty military war against Argentine society"" Jsgoyburu (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dirty War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/nuevajotape/4161.doc
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170322200010/http://www.mfa.gov.il/desaparecidos/PatriciaJuliaRoisinblit.html to http://www.mfa.gov.il/desaparecidos/PatriciaJuliaRoisinblit.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46
Added archive https://archive.is/20090814042252/http://www.theargentimes.com/feature/la-tablada-the-guerrillas-last-stand-/ to http://www.theargentimes.com/feature/la-tablada-the-guerrillas-last-stand-/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160514035930/http://thenation.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/11197743.pdf to http://thenation.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/11197743.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)