Talk:Montoneros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About catholic profile[edit]

It is not accurate to say that Montoneros was a catholic group. Although most of the founding members considered themselves catholics, this fact is not enough to label the group as "Catholic", even as a community faction. No catholic lemmas, no catholic leaders, flags, goals or social doctrine was ever involved in Montonero's political platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDCM (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.Agre22 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]
Agreed. Additionally, note that Montoneros had also atheist, agnostic, and even Jewish members, such as for example Miriam Lewin. --190.19.12.231 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this is an over 15 years old discussion, I still decided to leave a note here for any future lurker here - the idea that Montoneros were not explicity Catholic is simply false, and their ideologically Catholic character is proven by several sources.
  • Aristocratismo de la salvación: El catolicismo “liberacionista” y los Montoneros by Luis Miguel Donatello states that while some members "were not and had not been Catholics", the organisation's ideology and sense of unity was "typically Catholic." (p. 256)
  • Mapping the Argentine New Left: Social Liberation, National Liberation, and Revolutionary Violence, 1969–1977 by David Copello bluntly affirms that "The impact of post–Vatican II Catholicism on the founders of the Montoneros was crucial."; it also adds that "For them religion paved the way for Peronism", and that the impact of Catholicism was explicit and was shown by practices such as "the prevalence of traditional gender norms" in the organisation. (p. 7)
  • De los camilos a los comandos peronistas de liberación en los orígenes de Montoneros by Javier Salcedo likewise states that the Montoneros' origins are in "groups in the network of radicalised Christian militancy that eventually became Montoneros". (p.220)
  • Montoneros y Católicos by Reynoso Pablo Alberto also discussed this in explicit terms - Alberto argues that the "vast majority" (gran mayoría) of Montoneros were Catholics and explicitly calls the organization "Catholic guerillas" (guerrilleros católicos) (p.15). Additionally, on page 5 this article makes it points clear by quoting Montoneros' declarations themselves from early and mid-1970s:

Many elements that speak of the influence that Christianity (and more specifically Catholicism) has exerted on the ideology of this guerrilla group can be found in the communiqués that report on the kidnapping and death of Aramburu. Number 3, addressed to the people of the Nation, gives an account of the trial that the "Conduction", constituted as a "Revolutionary Tribunal", brought against the kidnapped man. The fifth of the charges for which he was found guilty reads: "To have been the vehicle of the oligarchy's revenge against what meant a sense of strict Christian justice" (Baschetti, 1995: 51), alluding to the attempt to lead a deception of the people with a false democracy. Communiqué number 4 notifies of the execution of the accused, concluding with "May God have mercy on his soul"; finally, in number 5 they affirm that "Our doctrine is the Justicialist doctrine, of Christian and national inspiration" (La Causa Peronista, 1974: 31).

  • Sobre algunos conceptos para comprender las relaciones entre religión y guerrilla en la Argentina de los ´60 y ´70 by Luis Miguel Donatello makes this point just as clear when stating that the Montoneros "belonged to a set of Catholic social networks" and they were "concentrated mainly - although not exclusively - in socio-religious spaces."
  • Finally, Soldiers of Perón: Argentina's Montoneros by Richard Gillespie also confirms that, as Gillespie wrote that the Montores drew "together radical Catholicism, nationalism, and Peronism into a populistic expression of socialism". (pp. 70-71)
Now, to be fair to these 3 people that participated in this discussion, some of these sources that I cite were publisher before 2007, not to mention that the Internet was a very different place back then and all these books and journals were not commonly available. But now, in 2024, I can hopefully put this debate to rest by stating once and for all that Montoneros were, indeed, Catholic guerillas. Brat Forelli🦊 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can indeed say that (most of) Montoneros were catholics, wich is true and it is widely sustained by many protagonists and documents (your citations are some examples). It is also true that Liberation Theology was of strong influence in radical political movements in Latin America, mainly among young college students. Founders of Montoneros are not the exception. But "catholic guerrillas" is a confusing term (and a wrong one in my opinion). If you attach a religion faith (say catholic, islamic, jewish, etc) to a guerrilla group, then you are implying that the political platform and ideas are embedded by the religion dogma and the religion is a goal by itself among others. This may be the case for ISIS, but it is NOT for Montoneros. The group's ideology was shaped by a variety of factors, including Marxist and nationalist ideas (far from catholicism). WikiDCM (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes, so you came back from 2007 to now answer me in 2024? This is so cool! Happy Easter to you! I was only 8 in 2007 (and I am 25 now), and given how you were already active back in 2007, then I suppose you must be, I dunno, in your 40s or 50s? Well met, sir!
In relation to religious dogma as such, I want to say that perhaps we make religions more dogmatic than they are in reality. ISIS and the Taliban can both appear as Islamic fundamentalist organizations in our eyes, and yet they are in fact ideological enemies. Now, while the Taliban is trying to run a country now and it is understandable for them to cut off other radical groups, this conflict was already in full swing well before the Taliban took over Afghanistan? Why? Well, ISIS adheres to the principles of Salafism, meanwhile the Taliban rejects it in favor of traditional Islamism.
Catholicism is no less syncretic and it can be, and indeed was, combined with Marxism, socialism and nationalism. While I am personally a Roman Catholic, and I hope that I am a good and faithful one, the belief of nationalism and Marxism being far from Catholicism, or being incompatible or otherwise conflicting, was largely absent from the political thought of Montoneros and liberation theology Catholics. That being said, it would be important to note that Montoneros were less Marxist than one might believe. David Rock for instance argues that Montoneros were hardly Marxist:

Of all these groups, the ERP alone was Marxist. The Peronists, particularly the Montoneros, were mostly Catholics who claimed to be Socialists but remained inveterately opposed to what they called “godless and antinational communism." The source of this outlook lay in the background, education, and early connections ofthe guerrilla leaders. Fernando Luis Abal Medina, for example, the co-founder of the Montoneros, who was killed in a skirmish with the police soon after the Aramburu episode, had joined Tacuara at the age of fourteen, seeing it as the local equivalent ofthe EOKA, the Greek guerrilla organization then fighting British rule in Cyprus. An admirer of George Grivas, the right-wing leader of EOKA, Abal Medina was also “a Catholic militant,” or as his own brother described him at his funeral, a “Catholic Nationalist.” Emilio Maza, another leader of the Montoneros killed soon after the Aramburu episode, was a former student leader at the Catholic University in Córdoba. Carlos Gustavo Ramos, co-founder of the movement with Abal Medina, was another student with a background in Tacuara. Finally, Mario Firmenich, the only leader of the Montoneros to survive the 19708, was of Croatian origin and was educated at the Colegio Nacional de Buenos Aires, the most distinguished of the metropolitan high schools. As an adolescent, Firmenich served as the president of Acción Católica de la Juventud. (...) García Elorrío, Mugica, and others became the links between the Montoneros and the Movement of the Third World Priests. This leftist “postconciliar” movement considered the church “out of step with the times” and identified “socialism [as] the form of society most appropriate to our times and to the spirit of the church.”

— David Rock, Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History and Its Impact (1993), pp. 214-215.
I also think this remark from Michael Goebel could be important since it emphasizes how nationalism likewise was less important for Montoneros than leftist Catholicism:

Since the ideology of the ERP, steeped in Marxism and sceptical towards Peronism, was by and large averse to nacionalista ideas, the scholarly debate about such links has focused on the Montoneros, who, according to the standard view expressed in the Cambridge History of Latin America, drew on ‘right-wing nationalist ideas that had inspired the neo-fascist movements of the previous decades’. More recently scholars have highlighted the importance of left-wing Catholicism as the main social sphere in the formation of the Montoneros, arguing that nacionalista groups like Tacuara were less significant as a fountainhead.

— Michael Goebel, Argentina’s Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History (2011), p. 158.
I hope these quotes shed some light on how Montoneros were like. Take care - I am willing to also share some quotes regarding the political thought of priests who radicalized Montoneros, if you'd be interested! May God open doors of blessings for you today and favour you in all you do! Brat Forelli🦊 00:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montoneros role with Eva Peron's return[edit]

Didn't the Montoneros bring Evita's body back from Spain? -- Andrew Parodi 14:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, they negotiated the return of Aramburu´s body (once again kidnapped from the grave..) for her´s. She was buried in Italy. --San Marcos 19:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, they negotiated the return of the body. Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

The articles is written from a strongly factious POV against Montoneros. No mention of the political context, of Montoneros' rôle under the Argentine Revolution, of the actions of other paramilitary organizations, including the AAA well before 1974, is made; neither are Montoneros' democratic activities during Cámpora's government mentioned. This should be completely rewritten. Taragüí @ 12:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though "paramilitary" seems to mean "military organisation beside the state's army" it is popularly (and in political science too) used for defining rightist groups of armed organisations. The Montoneros CANNOT be called paramilitarian. (Sorry, no logged-in user... November 2006)
The above comment is incorrect. You assume the definition of "Paramilitary" is literal, from the Greek root "Para" (beside; next to [the military]). However, in English, "Paramilitary" is defined as "an unofficial military force organized similarly to a military force". This would include armed political movements such as the Montoneros, and it makes no difference whether a particular Paramilitary group is political right- or left- wing.

The article is somewhat simplistic, but is rightly focused on the violent activities of the Monotoneros, who in the 1970s were fighting to create a left-nationalist revolutionary dictatorship. The Montoneros and other guerrilla groups were responsible for killing an estimated 1,500 people. Although they were unable to seize power themselves, the Montoneros contributed to the chaos that served as the pretext for the military's "dirty war" that resulted in the death of 10,000 to 30,000 Argentines, most of whom had no part in the insurgency. -- EGS, 14 December 2005

Ive made some changes. I believe there is no longer a need for the NPOV tag. The AAA is mentioned where and when it should be. If theres additional information, then let someone add it, but I dont think you can say something is NPOV because some facts are not mentioned, the important thing is that value statements (like "Peron was a fascist") are excluded. YoungSpinoza 16:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a need for the tag. The article radically misconstrues Montoneros; the context of their action, both nationally as a part of neoperonism and internationally as one of the antiimperialist movements active in the '60s and '70s, is obscured, thus distorting the intent and scope of their actions. Accusing Montoneros and other revolutionary movements of causing the PRN is historically inaccurate and politically misleading; the Cold War powers' increased control of political deviancy was far more influential than any single activist group's actions, something that the article systematically fails to mention.
As for you, YoungSpinoza, you seem to have thoroughly misunderstood what NPOV means. I've already tried to summarize it for you in the the Spanish version's talk page, so I won't expatiate on the subject again. Failing to mention important facts is as NPOV as you can get, though. Taragüí @ 14:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparent that both of you have NPOV issues wrt this topic. If the misunderstanding of the NPOV standard is such that you need to discuss it on the Spanish version talk page, perhaps you both should limit yourself to editing the Spanish page and refrain from editing the English version. Maybe leave it to others who have no preconceived notions of the Dirty War and contemporary Argentine history.

Assuming more facts are necessary because otherwise other facts will inevitably lead to an extremely negative view of these people, what precise facts do you want to be included? You mentioned AAA activities during the democratic government, its there. The article doesnt say the montoneros and other groups caused the coup, it just says the coup responded to them, which is true and was mentioned by them as one of the their main reasons for the coup. You cannot include the coup as cold war struggle-determined, unless you include it as an hypothesis, which I invite you to do. I dont like writing long sentences so I also invite u to make reference to montoneros' arising in a decade or decades in which similar groups arised not only in Latin America, but also in Europe as a sign of political discontent, if you believe that makes the article more NPOV. I do agree the role of Montoneros in allowing Peron to return to Argentina is too important to be ommitted and is way more important that the sinking of a ship, but I dont believe that adds up to neutrality. Anyways, add that fact too. I dont know what you refer to with "democratic activities", you mean the political branch? Well, then add a sentence saying they had a purely political branch. If the article lacks vital information, or information you believe to be vital, as long as it is true, then add it, you need not discredit the whole article. YoungSpinoza 16:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that "facts are necessary because otherwise other facts will inevitably lead to an extremely negative view of these people". I am saying that the article is biased and misleading because it leaves out the political context, which induces a mistaken interpretation of the facts. Montoneros and other revolutionary groups were created to a large degree by the official proscription of the Peronist movement, forbidding the legal expression of a Peronist affiliation, electoral participation, the public defense of anything that could be construed as an endorsment of the Peronist regime and even the intellectual discussion of its ideas (I suppose you're aware of the 4161/56 decree to the effect); one should also not fail to mention that politics in the '60s and the '70s was as often carried out with tanks as not, as evidenced by both the repeated actions of both Cold War powers to control their political satellites and other countries and the systematic intervention of the military in political affairs. The idea of armed political intervention was by no means the sole province of far-left extremists, as your interventions seem to imply, but rather a natural part of the political game at the time.
If you do not understand what the political activities of Montoneros were (which included, for example, two ministries in the Cámpora governmente, one of them being Esteban Righi, a close associate of the Montoneros national council), perhaps this isn't an article you can contribute to. Montoneros was mainly and fundamentally a political movement; armed action was a means to political goals throughout its existence, and was discarded when doing so seemed possible.
As to the influence of Cold War politics on the coup, it's no more hypothetical (in any meaningful sense of the word) than its being caused by political unrest. In the real world, every meaningful statement is either a definition or a hypothesis. The question is what intellectual backing it has in either case. I can source my statements, if that is what's troubling you. Taragüí @ 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has clearly devolved into a grudge match between two narratives of Aegentine politics and history, I suppose it can't hurt to point out that the cold war powers thing is sort of beside the point. The article should inform the reader of the history and activities of the Montoneros, it should not be spinning theories of international cold war intrigue in an attempt to excuse and explain Argentina's years of political strife and distinction. It's clear that both of you see this article as a means to push your own narrative and worldview, ignoring the objective of a Wikipedia article. How many were disappeared by the junta is not relevant to this article. It's enough to get the broad outlines of the movements grievances

The article is definitely one-sided. Far for me from supporting any kind of terrorism or violence. However, the "Guerra Sucia" (dirty war) main result was the killing of between 20,000 and 30,000 dissidents and random people "by mere remote association". I also doubt the "7000 supporters of the Montoneros" number in the article. In any case, the state terror lauched by the Videla, Viola, Galtieri juntas was far far worse than the Montoneros terror. I added a comment that of the 30,000 disappeared, most were dissidents unconnected with terrorism. I should know. My uncle was one of them -- The Vanished, Jan 2006.

I see your point, and the article shoud almost completely rewriten. But let's do it right, and bring references for controversial points. Hope you can understand. Mariano(t/c) 10:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of montoneros may certainly be above 100 thousands, but "supporters" is a vague idea. Active members is a different thing. Richard Gillespie, author of "soldiers of peron-argentina's montoneros" estimates 5000 members, of which 3000 where part of the military apparatus. María Moyano in "La patrulla perdida" estimates 3500 members. 7000 seems to be clearly above estimates, but it is not outrageous. Rather the 30 thousands disappeared is outrageous, given the fact that no investigation ever shed that number. YoungSpinoza 02:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think if we say something like The number of active Montoneros is estimated between 3500 and 7000 members, and for the disappeared: Even though most investigations, including that of the CONADEP, yeld a number of dissapeared around 10,000 persons, it is populary believed that this number might be closer to 30,000..
Please, do the edits yourself, since I don't have to proper sources. Thx, Mariano(t/c) 08:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even the number of 10.000 is more than it really was. The CONADEP report established the number of 8.965 missing persons, what you call populary believed is in fact, what the left wing political parties and groups as try to establish as the true.

For a new explanation of those years in Argentina[edit]

First of all, sorry for my english.

Most of the historic explanations of that time in Argentina and the dictatorship act´s always get around the guerrilla´s and the militar actions, deaths, etc. But the accounts of that years, from the militar organizations and from de Human Rights organizations, don´t explain or can´t explain the deep reasons of that conflict. At all, it looks like some "sheriff vs guerrilla" tale, that only take a look in the represion, kills and paramilitar acts from the dictatorship.

We can determinate three different accounts: - The most righty (fascist) sector tells that the kills and the dissapearences were absolutly necessary to exterminate the guerrillas, some crazy marxist no-god groups. - Other holds that in the 70´s and the dictatorship period, there were "Two Demons": the extreme left and the extreme right, involved in an "irrational" fight. Here, in some way, the dictatorship is justified in its early and apparent purposes (exterminate the guerrillas)but condemne in its real results and repressive-murders policy. - The last account, presents the dictatorship actions just like a totalitarian government (thing that really was) but only take look on its repressive acts, acts that are just the product of military forces and a kind of sadistic men. This is the point of view of most of the Human Rights orgs.

The common matter in the three accounts is to get an eye on the problem only in the repression acts, without getting focus in the international context, in the economic questions and in the POLITIC deep problem. But when we analize and take into those account of facts, we discover that neither the dictatorship government acts can be understanded just by the guerrillas question and neither the guerrillas acts can explain really the arrive of the militar forces to the government.

As we know, the capitalism in the 70´s had to do a dramatic adjuste to get over its own crisis. The working class position in the capitalist countries was a big hindance for the profits of the biggest economic groups, in the national and global context (because of that, the Plan Condor, and Kissinger or Reagan international politics against the popular or lefties movements all over the world, etc) The results of all of those matters are what we are experiencing today and are vulgary known like "Globalization". Liberization of capital movements, restructuration of all the production process, miserable salaries, end of the indirect salaries (represented in the Welfare State protection services), opening of new enviroments to the capital´s logic (privatizations, etc), dissolution of inner markets and reorientation of the production to the global market, etc. To make real all of those things it was necessary to disciplinate and attack the working class organizations and its historic conquests.

- During his stay in Spain, Peron get involved with a really large arc of politics organizations, from the right and the burocratic working class organizations to lefties movements and organizations like Montoneros, self-define like "peronistas". - Finally arrived, Peron can´t contain so many opposite movements on his wing (because all the situation were deeper than his political cleverness and any politic one´s). Finally (and I would say Obviusly)he decided take place with the rightest sector (economic groups and burocratic trade-unions) and persecute the lefties and independent organizations and trade-unions. The AAA (Anticomunist Argentinean Alliance) was necessary supported by Peron. - Once Peron´s dead, the crisis got more accuse. In 1975 a savage economic plan called The Rodrigazo, started a new period in the Argentina´s economic history that marks that readjust of the global capitalism and the neoliberals policies. All those policies are gonna be implemented during the dictatorship (and in fact are gonna be the explanation of ALL the dictatorship facts), using all the means necessaries. But, in the case of The Rodrigazo, a big devaluation that attacks working class position, the opposition of the working class movement presented a very big problem to the economic groups and make their government and their needs of economic readjustes fair. - The working class power got in scene and made big deale for the dominant class in the Cordobazo in 1969. Peron himself couldn´t discipline it, once he came back. - The two most important guerrillas were practically disallowed before the coup. The ERP (guevarist) was eliminated in 1975. Montoneros (nationalist and some lefty) had much less power in that moment, it was very weak to represent a real menace to the imperant order. Their elimination, no doubt, could be completed with a democratic government. The AAA also made some terror acts and attribute them to "the left", for justifie the future coup. Even most of the Montonero´s leaders use to had contacts with some sectors of the army and the right arc, because of its "nationalist ideology". The ideology of the Montoneros organization was a little bite contradictory, their sources were nationalist and catholic ideas but then it gets a cloudy build that take opposite figures like Peron (nationalist and capitalist) and Guevara (a marxist leader). One of the most common historic errors is to take it like, practically, the only opposite power in that years, when the opposite arc was really much more powerfull and wide than this organization. In the facts Montoneros never has enough power to question by itself the dominant powers. No big guerrilla lasts such a few years, Montoneros wasn´t an organization comparable with Sendero Luminoso o FARC. - The coup toke place only nine months before the new president elections. But a new democratic president hadn´t could make all the things that the economic power thinks necessary for its hegemony. - Montoneros and ERP were just two armed groups in a constelation of hundred of working class organizations. The biggest problems weren´t the guerrillas, the biggest problems were the lefties working class organizations like the basist and independent trade-unions that had a big power in the plants and didn´t let the economic groups (or the State in their name or even the CGT) take decisions that could touch their conquests, necessary decisions in the new context for the dominant class. - The biggest part of the dictatorship´s victims were workers and syndicalist leaders, not guerrilla men, not artists. - In a historic, balance the repressive acts of the military Junta must be include in this context. The extermination of the guerrillas was almost done in 1976, the intentions of the dictatorship in fact were destroy as soon as possible any power of the working class to make the readjuste to the new parameters of the new capitalism stage and help the dominant class to keep in power and increase it power. - The guerrilla´s question was just, and only just, a little part of the problem, and so a very poor, and efective, excuse to justifie all the future acts. - No one of those three accounts of that time could explain in a good way the real nature of the dictatorship in a complete articulation. - The persecution and kill of workers (even those who were colaborating with the AAA before 1976),independent or opposite militants, etc are only explainable taking in the other hand the external debt growth, the salaries freezing for years, the prohibition of any syndicalist activity, the liberalization of the economomy, the growth of poverty and inequality, etc. The two faces of the same coin.

I think this way of explaine that period is more realist and fruitful that others, that only rest in repressive acts, whitout taking care necessary deeper questions for explaine all, I say all, the dictatorship acts. And brings better tools to explain similar cuestions, even in countries with no important guerrillas or even with a lefty government like Chile with Allende. --Esteban 1982 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've seen the article has an extremely peronist statement, wich is, logically, not neutral (and by the way, false)
"The Junta responded to guerrilla groups with a Dirty War to counter terrorism. Up to 30,000 people died ..."
I wasn't born by those days, but as far as I know, the AAA (Asociación Anticomunista Argentina) was created during Isabel Peron's presidency, so it is hard to me to beelive that the militars started everything.
With this I don't mean that killing everyone was a good thing, but please, while "making your point of view more prominent" try to cite sources to support yourself, because those books were NOT used to write the article, we all know this, dont we?. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that everyone is arguing numbers and how many disappeared dring this period. The reports of the disappeared were written in 1984 (Nunca Mas)CONADEP. This was immediately following the end of the repression which CONADEP admits that their facts were only a fraction of what may have occurred during those years. If you check CIA documents that were released as far back as 1977, you will also note that documentation exists in 1978 where Argentinians had signed petitions of over 17,000 signatures from people whose family members had gone missing, begging for US interference, to find out what had happened to them. For all we know, the numbers could surpass the estimated 30,000...

POV check[edit]

The POV check tag has been in place for a long time now, and there seems to be no discussion. What do we do about it? I'd like to hear opinions. If the article is biased, it must be corrected; if not, I'm going to remove the tag. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is horrendously biased. I don't have the sources with me (nor the time) to undertake a major rewrite, sadly. Taragüí @ 12:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say that I think words like "terrorist" would count as weasel words and thus shouldn't be in the intro.--Jersey Devil 00:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey, if you cite WP:WEASEL you must have read it and thus know that Terrorist cannot count as a weasel word, and isn't even close to being one.

There should not be a discussion as to the nature of Montonero's terrorism in the 1970's. There is no good and bad terrorism, it is what it is. You place bombs under other people's beds because you disagree with what they do and that would most likely fall under the category of terrorism. Montonero's have been romanticizes much in the same way the IRA was in the early 80's late 70's. I agree with the label of terrorist organization should stand and not be removed. Otherwise the same should be done for ETA and Red Brifades in Italy which used similar forms of struggle.--SetvenKaplan (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims under Videla[edit]

I changed the number of 'Videla-victims' to 10.000. The figure of 30.000 deaths under the Videla junta is most probably too high. Dutch anthropologist Anton Robben thoroughly researched the Dirty War of the 1970's, and came to the conclusion that about 8500 deaths have been confirmed, with another 1000 still missing. The maximum number of victims should therefore be set to 10.000. Origins of the figure of 30.000 are not quite clear: Robben and several other researchers state that this was probably introduced by oppositional forces such as the PRT and Montoneros to create more international sympathy for their cause. Human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch state the same: 10.000 is the correct number. JayGuevara

If Robben's opinion says that, then say it's Robben's opinion. I've changed the "up to 10,000" to "at least 9,000", an approximate number; the CONADEP report says literally:
With regards to the first list, which results in a figure of 8,961 disappeared, it is --inevitably-- an open list. [...] We know... that many disappearances have not been denounced, because the victims had no relatives, because these chose to remain silent, or because they lived in locations far away from urban centers... [M]any relatives of disappeared [in the interior of the country] told [CONADEP] that in past years they did not know where to go. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish version[edit]

The spanish version of this page has a more neutral tone. The article looks biased from the first line: "Argentine radical terrorist leftist nationalist catholic guerrilla group". The spanish version defines it as "armed organisation", without all the other adjectives that are questionable if not inacurate. I wouldn't remove the POV check - there's a lot of work to the in the article.

Montoneros' main song[edit]

This site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFguExSspyc&feature=related has the Montoneros' main song.Agre22 (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

That's not the "main" song of Montoneros, but that of their sister organization, the FAR (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias). This is the right link to Montoneros "official" march: Libres o muertos pero jamás esclavos.--Darius (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The kidnapping of BYB in 1974[edit]

The article writes:"On July 15, 1974, Montoneros assassinated Arturo Mor Roig, a former foreign minister. In September, in order to finance their operations, they kidnapped two members of the Bunge and Born business family. They demanded and received as ransom $60 million in cash and $1.2 million worth of food and clothing to be given to the poor. This ransom is the highest ever paid according to the Guinness Book of Records."

Well, the site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7Q03GJVgL0&feature=related talks about this montoneros' crime.Agre22 (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

This site: [Lewis] has a page about the actions of Montoneros. They were strong and full of money and guns. Agre22 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

JustinAKlunz[edit]

I agree JustinAKlunz that I may have gone over the top with contributions. I'm fairly new at this so I guess I'll be needing your help.My main interest are the military operations of both sides.I promise also to include in the near future overlooked incidents where the militaries committed excesses. I don't agree with the military generals of that era for they were cold hearted brutes that turned a blind-eye to the excesses being committed and there were many. But then again, I somewhat believe the guerrilla groups provoked the military into reacting the way they did. I am hoping to make. British journalist John Simpson said this in a book I read a few week's ago. I will obtain this book to maybe include his commentariesl. Anyway I admit I didn't include the necessary sources in some of the contributions I made. I was getting very fatigued after many hours. What got me started in this is was a taxi trip I took home last week after a few drinks after work. The driver was an old man from Argentina and we talked about the dictators in Argentina that I had read in the book of John Simpson and he told me to check my facts, that he was an honest immigrant and not a fugitive and that Argentina had nearly gone into a civil war. I was bored on the weekend so I started investigating. I hope you now understand.--91.121.139.161 (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are "new at this" (I assume you mean new to Wikipedia) maybe you shouldn't start out by editing such a problematic and controversial article. The fact that you are interested in the topic and seem to have preconceived opinions about the subject matter is also a problem.

La Nacion talks about he Montoneros[edit]

This Argentine site:[La Nacion] has an article in Spanish, about the Montoneros.Agre22 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Neutrality.[edit]

I think that the article is neutral enough, maybe we should remove the POV tag. Don't you think? objections? 190.17.83.13 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will remove the tag. If somebody has any objections, feel free to restore it until a new consensus could be reached.--Darius (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose[edit]

There is a dispute about the "motives" entry in the infobox, whenever we should use "Establishment of a socialist state in Argentina" or "Establishment of a socialist dictatorship in Argentina". The first one mentions only the political orientation, the other is more specific: political orientation and type of government. The reference says it all: disbelief in institutions, and taking power by force. Which means, a dictatorship. A dictatorship justified by a "the end justify the means" reasoning, but a dictatorship nonetheless.

That's not what a dictatorship is. A dictatorship is a state run by a dictator which is a sole ruler holding absolute power. Dictatorships are not anti-institutional, in fact quite the opposite. They also do not necessarily seize power by force. They also do not necessarily claim that the ends justify the means. I'm not sure if the frequent misinterpretation of words by editors of this article result from non-native English skills, or lack of education (most of you seem to have a tone and composition style indicating you are in secondary school) but if you are going to baldlu state that a word means such and such, please Google the definition of the word, this is like the 3rd time in this talk page I've corrected someone who was framing their statement around an incorrect definition of a word

Have in mind that the author of the book used as reference is José Amorín. And who is José Amorín, this man who says that Montoneros did not believe in democratic institutions and wanted to take power by force? An antiperonist historian, perhaps, living in an ivory tower? Not at all. Amorín is one of the founding members of Montoneros. He sure knows better than anyone else which were the motived of Montoneros. If some other source, external to Montoneros themselves, says otherwise, it should take this reference into account and explain why Amorín would be lying, or it won't be a credible source. Cambalachero (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The violent seizure of state power and lack of faith in the institutions do not make the objective is to establish a dictatorship. Historians have many disagreements with each other. It isn't our job to take sides but to reflect as neutral as possible, which is not achieved with the word "dictatorship". Sorry for my bad english.--Falerístico (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if not a dictatorship, what else could it be? Call a spade a spade. This reference is a step above disagreements between historians, it's a founding member of Montoneros, proudly admiting by himself that they wanted to make a coup, take power by the strength of weapons. Do you believe that, after such a coup and when they defeated the "evil" in the country, they would leave weapons aside, call to elections and restore democracy? Which founding member of Montoneros ever said a thing like that? Cambalachero (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that one side were the bad and others good (unlike you, who admire the Argentine Armed Forces). The socialist states weren't dictatorships: in fact, only a few cases they were (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, North Korea). In any case, this is not the issue. The claim that an eventual montonero regime had been dictatorial is to choose only one part of historiography and, therefore, is not neutral.--Falerístico (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which leads us to the begining: José Amorín is not a historian biased against Montoneros, but a founding member of Montoneros himself. You are basically saying that there is historiography that view Montoneros in a perspective that Montoneros themselves deny. Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the citation of Amorín, where does it say that they would montoneros establish a dictatorship when it took power?--Falerístico (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text and page, it's all there. Cambalachero (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, that's not what the book says, but what you interpret it.--Falerístico (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montoneros as a Terrorist Organization[edit]

I believe that Montoneros can be categorized as a Terrorist Group for conducting kidnapping and execution of military personnel and CGT leaders. What do you think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.137.185.232 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Montoneros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montoneros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montoneros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montoneros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hair needs combing[edit]

If I can happen to notice that "26 October 1975" is duplicated, how much else is? Shenme (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montoneros&oldid=1216439245"