Talk:National Reorganization Process

Move

I think that this article should be more along the lines of the article in Spanish wikipedia [1] I'll start working on merging/translating them as I have time. As they stated below this was the official name of this period and Dirty War was just a part of it. MarianoL (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move Dirty War here??? 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)

It may even be better to merge this article to Dirty War, was the events carried out by the junta are known in the English-speaking world as the Dirty War. Alr 18:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Dirty War. The Dirty War was specifically the repression of insurgency and its associated violations of human rights (plus the response by the insurgent groups). The Proceso was the whole government. The Dirty War is considered by some to have started before the Proceso (with the AAA et al), and it should be treated like that. This article about the Proceso should be expanded with info about censorship of the media, the Plan Cóndor, etc. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No official investigation backs the 30,000 number, so I made the pertinent ammendments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungSpinoza (talk • contribs)

Yes, the dirty war could be merged with this. Pablo, if some or many (I despise indefinite articles) historians consider the dirty war to have started before, then you should state it as such a "consideration" or hypothesis, not a fact ("are considered to have continued" instead of "continued"). Regarding, Lopez Rega, a link should be included to where it says he was (instead of he was suspected of) being a member of P2, and it should be something else than gelli's declarations to be a friend of peron. I made some changes, justification is in the history log. YoungSpinoza 16:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It could by no means be merged with the Dirty War article. The Operativo Independencia started well before the PRN, during Isabel Perón's mandate; the military government and the military repression of insurgence were certainly linked, but quite distinct.

López Rega's name was found in the Propaganda Due member lists found by the police in Licio Gelli's house in 1981, right next to Lastiri, Vignes and Massera. You can check it here. Taragüí @ 16:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then. Regarding the conadep issue. There was not misrepresentation, it was a literal transcription of the english version of the nunca mas document. By the way, why did you revert the link to the spanish version if there's an enlish one?. YoungSpinoza 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NO MERGE. "Proceso de Reorganizacion Nacional" is propaganda term. It's a bit like if you called Nazy Germany the "Third Reich", which was to last a thousand years. Tazmaniacs

I will remove the tag as there is no more discussion about this. FedericoEcon 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Tag?

Why the cleanup tag? --Guinnog 16:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking it down; if you want to reinsert it, please say here what you think neds cleaned up to assist other editors. Thanks. --Guinnog 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename?

This page should really be moved to National Reorganization Process (as per WP:UE). Its a direct, literal translation and anyway we have to clarify the Spanish original version all the time. Shall I? —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the name, but you have a great point. Go ahead. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename to History of Argentina from 1976 to 1983

I propose this, because I understand that Dirty War has been reserved to the human rights violations of the junta, while this article is supposed to include economic policies — of which much more can be said, of course. Furthermore, if you check the History of Argentina article, you'll see that this time-period is actually under the header "Dirty War". Thus, this renaming would help the "History of Argentina" article get more coherent. Tazmaniacs 12:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Process was the official name of the military government, and thus the name of the Article. I believe the article centres in the government itself, and does not include other aspects of the history of the country during that time that could include Scientific achievements, culture events and other topics. Same thing for Generation of '80; it describes a lot of a par of decades in Argentine history, but is centered around a special topic. Mariano(t/c) 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Few months later, but Internet is another time-dimension... I'd like to 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."

As "Dirty War", for that matter, we can't say that National Reorganization Process is NPOV. It is the name used by the junta itself, and "reorganizing" means that Argentina was dis- or badly organized. The assassination of 30.000 persons is hardly what I call "reorganization." I would rather call it something like "destructuralization of society," sort of a reference to the sociological concept of anomia.

The second reason is not concerned by NPOV, but by article coherence and navigation on Wikipedia. Currently, this article & Dirty War sort of overlap, although they are not exactly the same. I understand that "Dirty War" is in fact a sub-article of NRP, as NRP englobes the Dirty War & economic policies — of course, this is not 100% correct, as demonstrated by controversies concerning when exactly did the so-called Dirty War started, in particular concerning Isabel Peron's rule.

Now, I hear your argument concerning cultural aspects, etc. But, precisely, History of Argentina between 1973 and 1976 could easily include a section on cultural events, with a resume of what is relevant and maybe a "main article: Cultural history of Argentina" or sgth like that. Another NPOV title for this article could be Government of Argentina from 1973 to 1976, but that's a weasel word IMO and is hundreds light-years from the popular designation of this period as the junta.

I hope you folks interested by the subject will leave a comment here when you have some time, I really think something should be done about this title - and don't forget: silence is approval! I will make now a similar request on "Talk:Dirty War". Tazmaniacs 18:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Background

I changed the sentence "He advocated a fascist policy dubbed Peronism" for "He advocated a new policy dubbed Peronism". I think that is very imprudent calling the Peronism a fascist policy. That assuption would need a serious discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrspokito (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Actually Peronism is a way of Fascism--Matutemats (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No real privatization

The article claims that there was privatization, during this period.Nonsense.Infact, with the only exception of Pinochet, all military rulers in South America were state's companies friends.There was an opening of foreign trade, but with unreal exchange and big inflation.Telecomunnications, oil were state's monoplies during all this period in Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.121.178 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Scilingo

The section says he was convicted and sentenced in Spain. Can someone elaborate on that? How did Spain get involved? --MartinezMD (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Check Adolfo Scilingo's article, under "Judgment" there's the explanation of the Spanish Universal jurisdiction law. Mariano(t/c) 06:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I "understand" Spain's law, but how did Spain get involved? WHo pressed charges? Was there any international resistance to Spain's prosecution of a case outside their domain, etc. That's the information I'm looking for. --MartinezMD (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Conservative vs liberal

Lead says "a time of state terrorism against civilians (as well as neoliberal economic policies)". Economic policies section says "along what would later be known as neoconservative lines". So which is it? Neoliberal or neoconservative? MartinezMD (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Categorization as neo-fascist

2804:248:fb90:5e00:8176:a98b:e224:88bc

If you dispute the characterization of the military junta as neo-fascist, then I invite you to do it here. I listed 4 distinct sources that explicitly state the regime was fascist, and I can probably find more if I do not limit myself to only English academia.

Regardless, this article can probably benefit from a section explicitly dedicated to discussing it's ideology- which I'll create soon. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to see more sources that label the regime as "fascist", and I would also like to see the arguments they use to support this position. -- 2804:248:FBCE:E400:541F:7B50:638E:F471 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There are 4 reliable sources listed. Discuss here before removing sourced material. MartinezMD (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The only source that tries to make an argument that regime was fascist is Finchelstein, the other ones just throw the label around. You need more than that before adding such categories. Again, are the more sources which label the regime "fascist"? If so, which arguments do they use? What characteristics of Videla's regime were fascist? -- 2804:248:FB1F:6600:4CF3:4DD7:D2E6:531C (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a better discussion. There's Finchelstein who has written several books/articles on fascism and describes the dictatorship as fascist. Then there's Egbal Ahmad. He describes neofascism in several countries, characterizing them, etc and mentions how several countries would fit that description, including Argentina in "The Neo-Fascist State: Notes on the Pathology of Power in the Third World" this link may go the book and with lesser mentions in other writings he includes Argentina. Then there's Cole Rizki a UVA professor interested in gay/trans issues writes a good article where fascism in Argentina and gay/trans issues overlapped with torture/oppression in Duke university's Radical History Review “No State Apparatus Goes to Bed Genocidal Then Wakes Up Democratic”. There are others who do just mention/label the dictatorship as fascist, but these mentioned scholars have done more work/writing. Now this is just in the English language. There's got to be more in Spanish, but that's more effort for me to sort through. Maybe you could look as well and not assign me all the work. MartinezMD (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so we have some sources. The first source mentions as characteristics of so-called "neo-fascism": "Repressive terrorist state apparatus" (not necessarily fascist), "State control over the economy and labor" (Not all Latin American dictatorships maintained state control over the economy), and "origins in petit bourgeois and propertied class" (debatable). After that it mostly talks about repression, foreign policy, etc. Except for the second one, none of the characteristics are defining of fascism. And no other core tenets of fascism are mentioned. It seems the source in question just throws the label around. The same is true for the second source. It talks about the regime's social conservatism and repression, while fascism is of course a socially conservative ideology, and fascist regimes repress opposition, those things are also not necessarily fascist.

Some core tenets of Fascism are: Totalitarianism, Corporatism, Anti-communism, Anti-capitalism, Palingenetic ultranationalism, etc.

Videla's regime (as well as other Latin American military dictatorships) doesn't follow most of these, they were just regular right-wing dicatorships, if anything, Peronism was closer to fascism than Videla's regime. Peronism was opposed to both capitalism and communism, and portrayed itself as a "third position" and alternative to both, which are some core tenets of fascism, and it also had it roots in the 1943 military coup, which was led by pro-Axis officers.

Lastly, since you're the one wanting to include these categories, the burden is on you to justify them, so far, their inclusion is not justified. -- 2804:248:FBC6:2700:6413:478B:FA10:AA3C (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the labels. It's the other editor who added them. I just reverted the removal of sourced material to follow WP policy then took a devil's advocate stance. But I will disagree with you in that Videla's regime goal was totalitarianism, was also nationalistic and anti-communistic. You should get other editors' opinions here, maybe an RFC, since it is not up to either of us to decide this, but to follow WP policy such as WP:RS and WP:V. MartinezMD (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Sure, Videla's regime was nationalistic and anti-communist (though calling it totalitarian is debatable), but it didn't follow many other core tenets of fascism, and as such, it can't be labeled a fascist regime. And I forgot to mention, but per WP:CATDEF, Videla's regime would also need to be commonly and consistently defined as fascist in order for the categories to be added. Perhaps it is appropriate to open an RfC, but as of now the inclusion of these categories is not justified. I think they should be removed until at least there is consensus to include them. -- 2804:248:FB24:CC00:F5DB:B168:537D:AE7 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Then shouldn’t the article not say that it is fascist. Jakester499 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, none of the sources in the article presented a good argument to label the regime "fascist". -- 2804:248:FB24:CC00:D9E:4236:6505:A3EC (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Economic policies

The economic policies section is a mess. It's not clear who did what and what minister was in charge of what area when. There is no chronological thread that ties this so it's a hodgepodge of copy and paste and direct translation that doesn't help. Emilitog (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)