Talk:Argentine Anticommunist Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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)