Talk:Junta

Untitled
Maybe this ought to have its own page, rather than just being filed under the "miltary dictatorship" article?
 * As a junta is the most typical and frequent type of military dictatorship, you probably would do better to specify in the lists in that section which are/were ruled by ne or more military juntas, and when (specified) other subtypes occurred. In quite some cases this also involved chnging a state's offical name Fastifex 10:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"pronounced as in Spanish /huːntə/ or /hʊntə/" This is nothing like the Spanish pronunciation. It might be how US-Americans mispronounce Spanish words. In Spanish it would be ['xunta]. Also, phonetic transcriptions should be enclosed in square brackets (Manual of Style (pronunciation)).--84.188.195.131 02:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Spanish and Latin American pronounciations are different - that does not make one right and the other wrong. -- Beardo 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jet Set Junta"
Re: "Jet Set Junta is a song by the influential, though little known, UK band The Monochrome Set" Can a band be influential yet little known? There is no wikipedia entry for the band... maybe they aren't all that influential? Blastfromthepast 05:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They do have an article: The Monochrome Set. --Smack (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating junta
Don't tell me to stop, because I didn't. B-) Uses of "junta" can be divided into two classes:


 * 1) Spanish uses.  This is any use which arises from Spanish.  This includes the Habsburg and Peninsula War uses, but the word can be used for anything from a school board to a chess club.
 * 2) English uses.  When someone writes about a former junta in Greece or present one in Fiji, this is an English word refering to a government set up after a military coup, with little or no constitutional legitimacy.

I can understand that Spanish speakers don't like it, but when "junta" is used in English, it usually means the latter. I have directed most of these to [[Military junta]]. Unfortunately, [[Military junta]] is redirected to [[Military dictatorship]], and prior disambiguators have linked [[junta]] directly there. While the Greek Colonels were clearly a military dictatorship, there are many cases where characterizing a junta as a dictatorship is unfair. When a corrupt regime is in power, often a military coup will depose the government with the intent of installing a civilian government. In the interim, the country is either ruled by a single person (a military strongman) or a committee (junta). In some cases, a junta respects the laws passed by prior republican governments, and passes power to to a new government in a few months. In such cases, linking to military dictatorship is wrong, and when the junta was installed yesterday (as often happens at Wikipedia), the junta deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I have linked many articles to military junta, knowing that military dictatorship is wrong. We need an article titled "Military junta" that talks about juntas, distinct from dictatorships. Then someone needs to find all the cases where junta was linked directly to military dictatorship and fix them.

There were a couple cases where I changed the text to "military coup". There were some more where I thought about it, but I try to avoid text changing when on a disambiguation run.

On to the Spanish uses: Habsburg and Peninsula War are pretty obvious. Many I linked to military junta. I do this with the caveat above, but I recognize that sometimes a government is called a junta which is not a military junta. These should be unlinked, as should most other uses of "junta" and I largely have. Actually, many of these are non-translation or half translation. If the original is "junta de elecciones", then it should appear in Wikipedia as "junta de elecciones" (in italic) or it should be translated as "board of elections" or "electoral commission". Half translations like "electoral junta" are just misleading and should be avoided.

If an article needs to use the word "junta" in its Spanish sense, the article needs to define the term. There's no correct link for it, because it's not an English word. I have not made text changes, but there are many changes that should be made. -- Randall Bart 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I started to disambig junta a few weeks ago and the vast majority of the articles linking to it where about military dictarorships --Barrytalk 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The sports combat article links to Junta - is there a martial art with this name somewhere in the pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.197.66 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2007

Splitting of page
No one is to blame for this, but what has happened here in the last 20 days is that a nearly MoSDab-compliant Dab'n page has been converted into an illegitimate hybrid between a terminology article and a Dab, presumably by editors unaware of the distinction. And that must be remedied -- which should make us all grateful to the alert and diligent user who added the Dab-cleanup tag, because the task is going to be unusually quick and clean, largely bcz there hasn't been a chance for a layer of substantially mixed contributions to accumulate. As it is, i'll be able to (in effect, not mechanics) move the Dab-improving revisions to Junta (disambiguation) and convert Junta into a Dab-free one with the terminology-article premised revisions. I'm declaring the article "in use" to increase the likelihood of my achieving that without disruptions. Your courteous compliance will be appreciated, and exceptions will be reverted without my necessarily feeling any compunctions to be the one who ensures that useful content doesn't get lost as a result. TIA. --Jerzy•t 08:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC) On further inspection, i see that the job of bypassing the Dab has not be kept up to date, and there are (i think) 164 lks to the Dab page, about 90 from the main ("article") namespace. I intend to assign the functions to pages as i described, in the long run, but for now, Junta will be the Dab page, and Junta (terminology) (other suggestions welcome as to the suffix, but no big deal bcz it's temporary) for the article. That should minimize the disruption. --Jerzy•t 08:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC) It's no longer in use; thanks for anyone who was up and forbore editing. There's more to be done before i go away and forget about the two pages, but no reason for me to be so aggressive in taking over control of the article again. --Jerzy•t 10:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Junta (Habsburg)
In my cleanup of the accompanying Dab page, i placed under the heading "Other governance" a replacement for
 * * Junta (Habsburg), an administrative body ruled in personal union with the Spanish Habsburgs

by removing everything but the bullet and link, in accordance with the last-but-two point under WP:MoSDab, which reads
 * The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.

An arguably related phrase, with a link to council (a dab page, that does not mention the word "junta") was added (this time before the Junta-(Habsburg) lk), without summary, in the next edit, and i undid that change with the following summary:
 * rem the substance of 2 June 2008 edit by Arcarius: "various administrative councils, such as ..." does not lead to an article for which "junta" would be a reasonable title

(Other MoSDab points would have further justified removal. I presumed that the inability of even a link to an article on the topic of councils, to further disambiguation among the entries, was too obvious to mention in a summary.) 90 minutes later that edit was reverted, avoiding word-for-word and markup-for-markup reversion only by the addition of the word "historical", and again without summary (let alone any message on this talk page or my own). I am about to counter-revert, so in an excess of caution i have explained here far more than should be necessary. --Jerzy•t 04:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)