Talk:Conquest of the Desert

message: Guys, the spanish title should go and "Conquest of the Desert" just doesn't sound right... maybe "Desert Campaign" or "Desert Conquest"?  The name sounds very lame.
--Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my (admittedly limited) experience, "Conquest of the Desert" is pretty much what it's called in English, if it's a matter of Giving It A Name rather than just describing it by means of a circumlocution. That's what E.Britannica does. Obviously, it's a calque from the Spanish, but that's the best way to handle names like that. Compare "destino manifiesto" and the like, which sound pretty lame in Spanish too, but they're established (I'm trying to say consagrado, but that's the best I can do) usages. I'd put the article at Conquest of the Desert (we've all heard those nagging "This is the English wikipedia" voices) and stop worrying about it. –Hajor 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I removed the unreferenced mention to John Evans because I considered it and undocumented fact somehow superfluous. Mariano(t/c) 09:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Evans 

message: I'm sorry I have to revert 's edits, but they were unsourced, and contained some POV phrases. It would be nice though to include a Critics or Civilización o Barvarie section, with official and unofficial numbers, and some interesting quotes. Mariano(t/c) 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revertion of anon edits 

message: Currently the article claims "The campaign is perceived by some as a campaign of genocide" this is a classic weasel worded phrase. Who are the people who say it? This sentence needs qualifying with the best reliable academic sources that claim it was a genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: :Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 6 for processing. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1867 Land Act 

message: Hi. The last independent cacique was Sayhueque. He surrendered on Jan 1st, 1885. Bye. Lin linao 00:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sayhueque 

message: These rifles were purchased by the Argentine government from the privately-owned Remington Arms Company.  The United States government had nothing to do with the transaction. as implied by the "supplied by the United States" wording.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.192.187 (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remington rifles supplied by the United States 

message: The latest wording from Argentina's Foreign Secretary is that Britain would be involved in a war against Argentina 130 years ago. I have not read the article word by word, but I do not know where it would confirm or disconfirm an act of military involvvement by the UK. This is basicaly the only thing that happened in South America 130 years ago. Anything else to be added? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conquest of the Desert was a conflict between Argentina and the natives living in the Patagonia. There was no British role in here at all. The closest military conflict with Britain by that time was the 1840s Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, which was a completely different thing Cambalachero (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I knew someone would mention the Anglo-French blocade of 170 years ago, Hector Timerman still has said this: “To say thirty years ago there was a war is true. But 130 years ago, Britain invaded Argentina – Britain is famous for being a coloniser." What does he mean by something that happened 130 years ago, even if there is a give or take two years? --82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: he had no idea of what the hell he was talking about. Surely, he knows about a war of 30 years ago, another war in the XIX century, and so he reasoned "30 years + a century = 130 years". Unless they are historians or academics as well, you shouldn't take politician's references to history as more reliable than a touristic brochure. After all, during the flag day a pair of days ago Amado Boudou (none less than the vicepresident!) said that he was going to Rosario to celebrate the bicentennial of the creation of the flag... when even elementary school students know that June 20 is the commemoration of the death of Manuel Belgrano, the creator of the flag, not the commemoration of the creation of the flag, which was in february. Cambalachero (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  British involvement? 

message: Removed the genocide series. It was a regular 19th century conflict, the term genocide is not justified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.136.211.39 (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead states: "[the Conquest of the Desert was] intended by the Argentine government to exterminate the indigenous tribes, an example of genocide.[4] First-hand accounts stated that Argentine troops killed prisoners and committed "mass executions."[4] The 15,000 Indians taken captive "became servants or prisoners and were prevented from having children."[1][2]". These are clear examples of active genocide, not just a regular 19th century war of conquest. Sietecolores (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Sietecolores. Even if you don't think it was a genocide, it has been called that by serious scholars. If there was a "spreading civilization" series, you could add that too, since some scholars think that. As far as I'm concerned, the scholarly sources alone justify the genocide series, even though the issue is contested. --Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Sietecolores there is an actual revisionism of history and there is an actual recall of the Campaign of desert by same scholars investigating and describing this as premeditated genocide, even I think the actual introduction dividing two postures revisionist and apologist is not good both postures have to be put in the same paragraph contrasting them. And as I said below a "early idea" or ideologist section should be create.--Bsea (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide 

message: President Sarmiento was an ideologist of the desert campaign, giving the idea of indian territories as "deserts" habitated by "barbarians" giving the idea that the only solution was "civilization" by the extermination of the barbarians. I will recall a quote in Spanish from scholar investigator.
I didn't find any mention of this early ideas promoting later the Conquest of the desert. I think an extra section in the article is needed to develop this ideas, promoted by Sarmiento, president Mitre, and some wings of Catholic church.--Bsea (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faustino Sarmiento 

message: What has the paragraph about the Guardian article got to do with the subject of this Wikipedia article?  I intend to remove this paragraph if its relevance isn't justified by rational argument. Ttocserp 13:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Guardian'' article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Conquest of the Desert. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501154410/http://www.neuquen.gov.ar/org/cultura/historiadeneuquen.htm to http://www.neuquen.gov.ar/org/cultura/historiadeneuquen.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227080911/http://www.mce.lapampa.gov.ar/archivohistorico/PAGES/m_ind_frontera.htm to http://www.mce.lapampa.gov.ar/archivohistorico/PAGES/m_ind_frontera.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312074314/http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/biografias/a/avellaneda.php?PHPSESS=efa74ed5090dfb636dcb615c021d14da to http://www.elhistoriador.com.ar/biografias/a/avellaneda.php?PHPSESS=efa74ed5090dfb636dcb615c021d14da
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627135240/http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2002/buenos_aires/ultimo-malon/campania.htm to http://www.oni.escuelas.edu.ar/2002/buenos_aires/ultimo-malon/campania.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623104900/http://www.elortiba.org/guedes.html to http://elortiba.org/guedes.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To say that Chile relinquishes (abandons) their claims on Patagonia and that Argentina's power rises due to this conquest are both simple historical conclusions based on previously stated facts. This is simple historical dialectics. To expect a source on this is inconsistent and unnecessary, especially given that it doesn't state nor claim anything new. 
Moreover, if this request for sources were to be kept, then we'd have a ton of problems with other articles about wars as their infoboxes with results would have to be filled with the very aesthetically-pleasing and confidence-inspiring [citation needed] mark. Indeed, something as obvious as saying "Argentine victory and emancipation from Spanish colonial rule" in this article would have to be removed or put the mark on. Do you see my point? Fasscass (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to deal with this is to keep the 'result' part as simple as possible. If that is not possible then use a non-committal word and elaborate in the article below. Failing that, write nothing in the infobox. 'Argentine victory' in your example is fine, but 'and emancipation from Spanish colonial rule' is loaded opinion and unnecessary. There has been extensive discussion over time about whether to put 'decisive victory' in the result section of an article. Once again, the word decisive is loaded and amounts to opinion. It is therefore by consensus omitted, even for battles such as Trafalgar. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

text: See the parameter 'result' in the template guideline here Template:Infobox military conflict. Based on this I suggest all the wording under 'result' in this article is removed except for 'Argentine victory'. A note might be warrented to redirect to somewhere containing more detailed information about the consequences of the victory. The infobox is meant for the basic summary of what is in the article - there should never be a need for a 'clarification needed' tag.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Done.Ttocserp 11:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the citation requests in the infobox for the sake of practicality