Talk:Dirty War

New article?

The bulk of the article should definitely be transferred into a new "Dirty War(Argentina)" section. --—This unsigned comment was added by Valenciano (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 February 2006.

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)

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)

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 a bit poor, to put it mildly. Don't you talk to IPs or what? 217.7.150.122 (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)