Talk:Argentine Anticommunist Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Argentine Anticommunist Alliance is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	South American military history task force

[edit] Subversion and terrorism

I think we need to discuss whether we should keep the reference to subversion and terrorism in the intro. Subversion is defined as "an attempt to overthrow structures of authority, including the state." Terrorism "is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals." Both things were undoubtedly present at the time we're discussing. Tazmaniacs, I know where you're coming from, but we aren't doing revisionism here. And if you're reading anything resembling support for the theory of the two demons in this article, you're mistaken. Please don't delete blocks of text like that; this is a collaborative effort and nobody's pro-dictatorship here, that I know. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I certainly not accuse you of supporting the junta, but when I read this sentence I do hear the theory of two demons. The term "subversive" carry a negative connotation, and is too much related, it seems at least to me, to far-right discourse. It's not a NPOV term (whatever the Wikipedia definition of it). If you disagree with the deletion, would you think about trying to work another formulation? And please excuse this undiscussed deletion, which is not any dictatorial intent of mine! I'm just following be bold guidelines, and assume that if it's not reverted, you and others users won't object to it (see for ex. recent additions to Dirty War). I do open up discussions for more controversial moves, such as possible renaming of the Talk:National Reorganization Process... All in all, I am not denying the fact that there was left-wing armed opposition, but that sounds for me a more neutral way to put things. Especially in the light of Marie-Monique Robin's documentary: "subversion" is a term that comes from counter-insurgency doctrine: you would hardly expect it to be NPOV. Furthermore, you know that the 1985 Trial of the Juntas pointed out that there was no state of war. The repression targeted civilians, not belligerents. "Subversive terrorists" is what counter-insurgency doctrine calls civilians in order to justify not applying the laws of war. Despite this ideological discourse, they remain civilian, as it was not a war. What about simply replacing "subversives" by "armed opposition"? Tazmaniacs

See this BBC article concerning Isabel Peron's arrest: the term "subversives" is used with brackets... Tazmaniacs 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to add a lot of content, please try to do so all at once. If you do dozens of edits, other users' edits may be caught in the middle; this makes changes difficult to revert if needed. Being bold is fine, but these articles are not, IMHO, so badly written and biased that they need you to be so bold. The issues are complicated and sensitive. Judicial sentences cannot change common use.

I agree that "subversion" has a problem, not because it's a far-right term, but because one of the possible definitions says it's violence meant to overthrow a legal government. But the sky's not falling down because of that; we can wait a few days to change it while we discuss a better phrasing. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I will try to heed your advice on various edits, although I can't promise to be perfect. If I find opposition from someone concerning such a debate on name, I will surely wait days or weeks to resolve the issue - I wouldn't have done it without discussion if I thought it would be an issue. Sincerely. Now, maybe you would be interested in this quote (which, apart, I think you've already read) from Horacio Verbitsky. According to him, Jean Ousset (from La Cité Catholique, off-shoot of the Action française) developed the concept of "subversion" along with Colonel Jean Gardes. Verbitsky: "this conceived a protean, quintessential enemy who, rather than being defined by his actions, was seen as a force trying to subvert Christian order, natural law or the Creator's plan." (Breaking the silence: the Catholic Church in Argentina and the "dirty war", July 28, 2005, p.3). Not a far-right term? Tazmaniacs 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed some bits about P2 and Gladio. Just because things look similar, do not mean they are connected, removed per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. It is fringe view that NATO was involved in these kinds of acts. Intangible2.0 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I revert this and took off the sentence entirely to remove the problem (see Dirty War). You replaced my comment by a 1983 New York Times article; although such old articles certainly retain interest, they are far from being in all times very reliable sources, especially when it is contradicted by the Juicio a las Juntas. Tazmaniacs 00:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by being contradicted? The New York Times article explicitly states that the group was founded in 1973 to combat "leftish terrorism," and therefore I rephrased the text to adhere to what is said in said source. Intangible2.0 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And the problem with this source [1] is that is does not give another source for its figure. Therefore I replaced it with that of a government report. I don't think both figures make for a better read. Intangible2.0 01:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)