text:
Talk:Lorenzo de' Medici

Untitled
Did he actually win any of those beauty contests??? -- Marj Tiefert, Sunday, April 14, 2002 ;-)

Almost every one to my knowledge -- he was a very powerful and attractive person. --maveric149

 * Hmph! -- musta bin having a bad face day when they did the bust then... (Marj)

To Marj It's "Must have Been " but anyway, I'm a High School Student I go to Conley High (D. H. Conley High School) and we are learning about him in class this semester so i decided to look him up because I wanted to know a little bit more about him. Sincerely Lashonda S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.231.14 (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Speaking of the bust, we really need a picture of that here. It's one of the most famous renditions of him. I'm going to add it to the article, since Wikicommons has it. -- Gwern (contribs) 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Lorenzo is generally described as being somewhat homely. The pageants referred to are actually Medieval tournaments, in which he often competed in his youth. -- Jnc 19:48, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What's up with that thing he's wearing? Is he getting a haircut? Taco325i 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this text:

 * The great rival family of the Medici clan was the Sforza, the most famous of whom was Francesco.

because a) it's wrong, the Sforza were allies more than rivals, and ii) it's in the wrong entry - Francesco was aided to power by Cosimo the Elder. At some point we should move it.. -- Jnc 19:48, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is (in Wikipedia!) vacillation between "Lorenzo de Medici" and "Lorenzo de' Medici" (same for other members of the family). As far as I know, there is in Italian no preposition "de". "de'" stands for "dei", a form which includes the definite article (plural). -- S. User:217.168.172.202 20:45, 27 Aug 2002

 * This is an English language encyclopedia so the most common form is "de" not "de'". --mav

This is a little disorganized, because almost all the Medici pages use plain "de", but two (Giovanni di Bicci and Piero the Unfortunate) use "de'". Just to make things complicated, it appears that the correct usage is actually "de'" (short for "della", I think).

The easiest proposal would be to use plain "de" throughout, which would mean renaming the "Piero de' Medici" page; unless someone wants to be really energetic and fix them all. (I'd also like to ditch the redirect from "Piero" - really, it's just a common given name, and doesn't deserve to be linked to him.)

Also, given the recurrence of names through the dynasty, we might want to consider using the form most historians use, which is the full X di Y de' Medici - e.g. Piero the Unfortunate is properly "Piero di Lozeno de' Medici". -- Jnc 19:48, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * He is most commonly known as Lorenzo de Medici in the English speaking world. So that is where the article should be unless a specific naming convention says otherwise. See Naming conventions (common names). --mav 23:28, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ummm, "Lorenzo I de' Medici" turns up 49 matches on Google, "Lorenzo de' Medici" about 16,600. Didn't you just point me at Naming conventions (common names), where it says "Use the most common name of a person or thing"? Even "Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici", which you just deprecated, turns up 164, more than "Lorenzo I de' Medici". Noel 04:33, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Just trying to balance consistency vs. use. I'll change it back since this Lorenzo is by far the most famous. --mav

--

On the second to the last paragraph there is a link to Lorenzo's brother Giovanni who I believe is Pope Leo X, but the link goes to Pope Leo XI who is Alessandro de' Medici. Is this just a simple typo? I don't know enough about this to be sure and change the link. (jtu) -- User:24.153.226.8 21:00, 12 Feb 2004

 * Lorenzo's brother was Giuliano - he was assassinated when they were both still young, and never held a major post. Lorenzo's son Giuliano (I know, confusing :-) was named after him.

jtu, good call-

Lorenzo the Magnificent's brother Giuliano had an illegitimate son named Giulio who became Pope Clement VII.

Lorenzo's sons were Piero, Giovanni (who became Pope Leo X) and Giuliano. Piero in turn named his own son Lorenzo (how confusing) and this younger Lorenzo's illegitimate son Alessandro was a duke, but never a cardinal or pope.

Hope that clears things up a little.

Also, I vote for the use of "de" because it is indeed and English-language encyclopedia; however, for serious scholarship, it is correct to use " de' " as the abbreveation for the Italian word "DEI."

(crawfoem) -- User:149.150.236.250 13:44, 26 Feb 2004

 * Is it possible that "de'" is actually short for "della" - this form is found in other Italian names from the period (e.g. the della Roveres).
 * We have chosen to use the "de'" form for the articles because it is the correct form. However, to be encylopedic about it, there are links from the "de" form of the name for every article. Noel 21:02, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

De or Di de or di
Basically de would be used in Northern Italy or spain as a connector between generational names. De would be the actual form of a new "last name" in Spain or Northern Italy. In southern italy the Di form is used. I am a Di Lorenzo. My family is from Sessa Aurunca, (near Naples) and we took our name from Lorenzo de Medici. Haven't taken the time to trace whether it is a blood connection or a name given. I visited a cousins home in Sessa,(46-room former monastary with an underground connection to the city cathedral)and know that our family had once been very wealthy. My branch of the family were tailors for the last 150-years or so and we made clothes for the clergy and the wealthy. This trade was practiced after the Italian civil war, which Naples lost. Conditions in southern Italy grew increasingly worse and we came to America early this century. I maintain contact with my cousins to this day. From Royalty to a salesman in America! :-) LOL -- User:172.203.194.38 21:31, 25 Mar 2004

 * Actually, the Medici used the "di" to separate generational names, too. So this Lorenzo is "Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici", in full. The "de'" is part of the family name (like the "della" in "della Rovere"). Noel (talk)

The family certainly uses "de'Medici" in modern times, I've worked with one for ten years. Basic Italian grammar: "de" means "of", but combines with the following definite article "il"(m), "la"(f) or "gli"(pl) to give "del", "della" and "dei". As noble families are numerous, they almost always have plural names ("Orsini", for example, being "the clan from Orsino") which usually takes a "dei" provided the following Family name doesn't start with a vowel, as that would create a glottal stop, hated by Italians (dei Orsini, for example, being a complete non-starter: it can't elide into "de'Orsini" either, and "d'Orsini" loses the definite article so completely it becomes nonsense - on the other hand, returning to this context, because M is a soft consonant, "dei Medici" elides into "de'Medici", even though a vestigial "i" remains in the pronunciation). The Sforzas, being imposed on Milan from outside Italy, aren't recognised as nobility, but as a (demonic?) Power, and therefore are the exception proving the point. To take Jnc's point further, Lorenzo's full name places him with greater accuracy in the clan, naming the father as well to remove potential confusing with other Lorenzos in the way you describe: it's simply shorthand for "son of", much like the French usage, "Jean de Florette" or Icelandic "Magnus Magnusson". A relevant example is Giuliano de Piero de'Medici and Giuliano de Lorenzo de'Medici, uncle and nephew, ruler of Florence and Pope, respectively: see the Medici discussion for a fuller Wiki debate. The word Medici means "quack doctor", and the family heraldic symbol, (a minimum of) 3 balls, refers to the pills by which the family is thought to have made its fortune with during the Black Death in the late 1340s. User:Jel 05:32, 1 Nov 2006 [UTC]

Picture
There seems no valid reason for the image to have been removed Nov. 14. I think it should be restored. Hu 18:40, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC).

Since no comment has been made, I have reverted to include the image again. Hu 19:41, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

 * Almost certainly just vandalism. Noel (talk) 00:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The chapel called the "Medici Chapel" in Firenze is a separate building, quite imposing and recently renovated, which houses the tombs of the Medici rulers. The smaller chapel, accessible through the main chapel, was designed in its entirety by Michelangelo Buonarotti, and the two tombs it contains are recorded as being the tombs of Lorenzo the Magnificent and Giuliano. I have been there many times. Original working drawings by Michelangelo are still visible on the walls of one alcove. I have not changed the text, lest it be thought to be vandalism, but would like approval to do so. Anthony.bradbury 16:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Is not the second paragraph here, apart from being grammatically incorrect, distinctly POV? Anthony.bradbury 22:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I changed the text; in my innocence I had not at first realised that I was looking at vandalism. But I learn fast.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Why does some idiot keep mucking about with this page? I have just corrected the latest idiocy. Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomb
I have made a significant change to the part of the article relating to the Michelangelo chapel. I have been there many times. Anthony.bradbury 22:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Machiavelli
"The Prince" was written for the grandson of this Lorenzo.

--199.17.27.5 17:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)bill

The fact that Lorenzo de' Medici ruled the Florantine Republic is mentioned a number of times in the article, as well as in those of the other Medici rulers. I believe this to be in error for at the time of the Medici rule it was more a city-state than a republic. Only after its conquer, and subsequent rule by Girolamo Savonarola in 1494 did it take on the properties of a republic. This inspired the writing of 'The Prince' by N. Machiavelli. User: ?unsigned

The above text appears to be unsigned: my contribution is inserted here, my apologies if I butt in. Il Principe was a job application to Giuliano de'Medici: Machiavelli had risen with the Republic to the post of Chancellor and Secretary to the Second Chancery, the Ten of Liberty and Peace, and hoped his experience would be of more value to the new rulers when the Medici returned to power in 1512 than his previous affiliations weighed against him. In his own words, "I pour myself out as fully as I can in meditation on the subject, discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept, why they are lost": in other words, "you need me to avoid making the same kind of mistakes which lost you Florence in 1494, lost Savonarola it in 1498, and which will lose you it yet again." He did not - could not, in the circumstances that he had already been under arrest - praise the Republic as such, although he does argue that a collaborative relationship between a population listened to by its Prince is an optimal model. User:Jel 0730 1 Nov 2006 [UTC]

Florence excommunicated the Pope?
I've just copy-edited the piece a little, but I'm confused by this statement:

The Florentines promptly excommunicated the Pope...

Without further explanation, that doesn't make sense to me, because it's popes who do the excommunicating. Perhaps another form of words would better describe what sanctions the Florentines enacted at this point, but I haven't the facts of the matter to hand. Anyone know exactly what this refers to?qp10qp 12:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What is "excommunicating the Pope" supposed to mean? (condorhero)

In Medieval to Renaissance times, Society was organised in a much more regionally structured way than is now the case. Just as the Medici family took and held political control in the Florentine Republic, so could they, if they wished, assume control of the Church in their area. Under orders, the Cardinal Archbishop performed an excommunication rite. As would be expected, this procedure was not accepted as lawful under canon law in Rome.--Anthony.bradbury 13:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

After the fallout of he Pazzi Conspiracy (which involved the hanging of a Priest involved in the conspiracy), Florence was excommunicated by the Pope. It was done to try to turn the people against the Medici by literally putting the fear of God's damnation into them but it failed. <- I'm paraphrasing from memory from the Paul Strathern book "Medici - Godfathers of the Renaissance"

Art additions?
the art that lorenzo needs to be added to this page because people need his famous art ,paintings,sculptures, and architecture..

(The above comment was originally added to the article itself by anonymous user 12.4.222.41.)

 * Agree that the article could be expanded a little, but I think that it already gives some indication of what Lorenzo sponsored. Could you explain what you'd like to see? —Ryan McDaniel 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One might also include links to the Uffizi and Bargello pages User:Jel 05:57, 1 Nov 2006 [UTC]

2 development thoughts: 1. Is it worth separating the dynastic tree and genealogy pages out from the Medici page? These rulers were more influential in their time, for instance, than the Kings of Scotland, and provided two of the more influential female members of the French royal family (Catherine and Marie). 2. Can somebody please reindex this page and the Medici one? They're becoming chaotic.User:Jel 05:47, 1 Nov 2006 [UTC]

Cause of death?
Is there any current research on his possible cause of death? He was only 43, yet "died peacefully in his sleep." Antandrus (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

mmm...I believe he died afflicted by the family illness - that being Gout. AprilBlood (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no real consensus on what killed him (some say lung infection) but whatever it was would definitely have been exacerbated by his gout.

STRANGER THAN STRANGE...
The article says that "as Lorenzo died, the tower of the church of Santa Reparata was allegedly struck by lightning".

How is that possible, considering the church of Santa Reparata didn't exist anymore, having been replaced - a long time before - by Santa Maria del Fiore?

Anyone?

P.S. Oh sorry - I just realised he died at Careggi, not in Florence. So, is there a church of Santa Reparata near the villa in Careggi? (Because if there is, it should be clarified. If there isn't, then my original question still stands. ;))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.23.51 (talk) 00:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Despite the church of Santa Reparata being replaced by Santa Maria del Fiore, Florentines still often referred to Santa Maria del Fiore as Santa Reparata. It was one of the buildings many Quattrocento nicknames. Thus, the source does refer to the lightning striking Santa Maria de Fiore. Rtmisst (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorenzo's two wives
I have studied Lorenzo for thirty years and have never read anything about him being married twice. In this article it says he married Philippina of Savoy after the death of Clarice. I've politely challenged it by requesting a citation just in case new evidence has appeared, but really it should be deleted before it starts appearing all over the place.Poppismith (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rux.pavelescu (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC) i deleted the blasphemy ....Philippina of Savoy was never his wife. she was an non-legitimate child of Philip of Savoy, perhaps same age as Lorenzo's youngest daughter. I doubt they ever even met. It's true that Lorenzo had several lovers, but as a spouse he only had the roman Clarice (other sources named her Claudia) Orsini.

Wealth
What could possibly be the meaning of this?: "This is roughly $40,000,000, not allowing for inflation or percentage of GDP."

What is being compared here? The currencies never exchanged, and if this apparently random figure does not "allow for inflation," then $40,000,000 in what year's currency. I think this figure will have to be removed. Perhaps a more meaningful measure or metaphor can be used, or it could be directly converted to weight in gold (around 200 Kilograms of gold?). zadignose (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Paul Strathern's book on the Medici, they paid a tiny amount of tax compared to their actualy wealth (basically it was old fashioned tax evasion). So the numbers cited on the page, while interesting, are somewhat irrelevant as they don't reflect how wealthy the Medici really were. I'm going to remove the sentence for this reason and the reason above.

A gold florin contained 3.5g of gold - so it is not that difficult to figure out how much wealth we are talking about in contemporary currency.Hfeatherina (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Historical novels
Is The Prince an historical novel? I never knew that.Levalley (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Uh, ... I didn't know that either. I removed it from the list.  Wonder how long that was there. Antandrus  (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Does it matter if he's mentioned in The Simpsons or the game, Assassin's Creed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.64 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I just finished watching the Netflix series and the Lorenzo portrayed there was Lorenzo the Elder. I'll remove the reference if nobody objects. Snarf99 (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Can people stop adding that stupid bit about Shrek. First of all on the actual character page it lists about 5 possible inspirations yet DOESN'T mention Medici. And yet on this page it unequivocally states he was the inspiration with no source because no source exists it's purely a guess from the appearance of the famous bust. Further more while popular culture sections hardly matter this isn't even some movie or game based on the time period, it's a silly animated comedy that MAY OR MAY NOT have pulled SOME visual inspiration - it is not a portrayal of Medici. It does NOT belong.

2606:A000:6B04:3F00:6DDB:F84D:CC6D:4001 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree. Lacking a reliable source it should stay out. Thank you for removing it. Antandrus (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we add 'Lorenzo Il Magnifico', a designer boardgame based on the general endeavour of his life.

Easter 1478
Sunday, April 26, 1478 is an impossible date for Easter. It can never fall later then April 25th. Easter 1478 should have been Sunday March 22nd. I know there was some uneasiness about the lunar tables drifting out of sync with reality by this time. It may have been more obvious this year because the full moon was really around March 18th and the tables said March 21st. The next full moon was around April 17th which by pure observation and ignoring the tables would make Easter April 19th. Is there a definitive source on April 26th being Easter? The church is very touchy about Easter and it seems odd they'd have moved it to April 26th for any reason. The concerns the church had about their lunar tables drifting away from reality eventually lead to the Gregorian calendar reformation. Skywayman (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Platonic Academy?
There was no "Platonic Academy" as posited by Della Torre in his famous, but now-outdated 1902 monograph Vita di Lorenzo il Magnifico: uomo, poeta, politico. The Platonic Academy has been the subject of much discussion over the past twenty years. It seems unlikely that Ficino ever taught in a school-like environment, but rather used the term “Academia” to describe his teaching methods. Neverthless, the Platonic Academy has become the emblematic for discussion groups among humanists concerned with philosophy and classical learning. See James Hankins, "Cosimo de’ Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’, The Myth of the Platonic Academy of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici as a Patron of Philosophy, and The Invention of the Platonic Academy of Florence," in Humanism and Platonism in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vol., (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003-4) 2: 187-217, 219-72, 273-316, 351-95; Robert Black, “The philosopher and Renaissance culture,” in Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 2007), 21-23; Christopher S. Celenza, “The revival of Platonic philosophy,” in Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, ed. James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007), 83.Hfeatherina (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

End of Florentine Renaissance?
I cut this "Lorenzo de' Medici died at the dawn of 'The Age of Exploration'; Christopher Columbus would reach the 'New World' only six months later. With his death, the center of the Italian Renaissance shifted from Florence to Rome, where it would remain for the next century and beyond.". The New World bit isn't particularly relevant and ignores that it took a substantial amount of time before the repercussions of that discovery were understood in Europe. The latter portion is improperly substantiated and, i think, just untrue. Yes, Rome become more of a fulcrum for the arts after Lorenzo's death, but i think that has much more to do with the patronage of the Pope Julius II and the Medici Popes Leo X and Clement VII.Hfeatherina (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of Father's Death
On this page it claims that, "Lorenzo, groomed for power, assumed a leading role in the state upon the death of his father in 1469", but on the Piero de Medici page it states that he died in 1470. Don't know which it right but I thought I would bring it up. RichTBiscuit (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was 1469, I'll edit it on the other page. RichTBiscuit (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The Medicis were among the foremost bankers in Europe at the time
According to many authors and reliable sources, such as this, state that "The Medicis were among the foremost bankers in Europe at the time". I think that in order to add this on Wiki, the word "banker" has to be replaced by something else.-- 115ash →(☏) 10:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rome??? What has to do Lorenzo with Rome? Alex2006 (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally nothing. See these sources 1, 2. Probably I made mistake on writing it correctly. -- 115ash  →(☏) 11:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just removed that phrase. That needs clarification.-- 115ash →(☏) 11:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to be clarified. Lorenzo was 100% Florentine, and the Medici was a family of Florence, period. The Medici reached great power in Rome too, but this was much later, with Leo X, Clement VII and Pius IV (all exponents of the Medici family), so, at the best, what this author writes is an anachronism. Alex2006 (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)]

 * What had Lorenzo to do with Rome?!?!?? See Medici Bank: they were Papal bankers and had a (very lucrative) branch in Rome, going back to the days of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici, when the Papacy returned from Avignon (1414). See also Pazzi Conspiracy: both Lorenzo and the Pope wanted to buy Imola from the Duke of Milan. Originally the Duke of Milan consented to sell it to Lorenzo for 100,000 ducats (May 1473), but then decided to sell it to the Pope instead -- for a mere 40,000 ducats and a politically advantageous marriage contract. Said Duke of Milan was then assassinated Christmas 1476 in a manner quite shockingly similar to the way Lorenzo's brother Giuliano met his maker . . . less than two years later (Easter 1478). Said Easter 78 stunt subsequently "justified" the incredibly prompt mass (hysterical) execution of alleged (aka untried) Pazzi Conspirators. The Pazzi, you see, had consented to loan the Pope the money he needed to buy Imola, after Lorenzo had specifically refused the Pope the very same loan. See: Professor Kenneth Bartlett's history of | Renaissance Italy (University of Toronto). fb2ts, 24 February 2016.
 * Maybe it would be better that before writing something you read the edits that were discussed here some time ago: otherwise you risk, as you just did, to write things totally out of context. Object of discussion was the definition of Lorenzo in the lead as "the most powerful member of the Roman nobility". This is just delusional, sorry. Alex2006 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth
In Florence at the time of Lorenzo's birth, New Year's Day was March 25th, NOT January 1st. Technically he was born on 1 January 1448. It needs an Old Style and New Style put in for date of birth. My reference is the book Magnifico by Miles J. Unger. 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:39B7:493A:37A7:93F9 (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lorenzo de' Medici


text:
Gustav Vasa

Gustav I (born Gustav Eriksson of the Vasa noble family; 12 May 1496 – 29 September 1560), commonly known as Gustav Vasa, was King of Sweden from 1523 until his death in 1560, previously self-recognised Protector of the Realm (Riksföreståndare) from 1521, during the ongoing Swedish War of Liberation against King Christian II of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Gustav rose to lead the Swedish War of Liberation following the Stockholm Bloodbath, where his father was executed. Gustav's election as king on 6 June 1523 (the National Day of Sweden) and his triumphant entry into Stockholm eleven days later marked Sweden's final secession from the Kalmar Union.

A process of radical change of the Kingdom of Sweden
Gustav Vasa gradually became the country's leader during the Swedish War of Liberation. Gustav continued the process begun by his predecessor Sten Sture the Younger and Sten Sture the Elder of freeing Sweden from foreign political and economic interests such as the Kalmar Union with Denmark, the Catholic Church in Rome, and the Hanseatic League in Lübeck.

Under Sten Sture the Younger, the archbishop Gustav Trolle was removed from his office, and his castle Almarestäket on lake Mälaren was demolished in the winter of 1517 on orders from the Swedish Parliament. The Swedish Parliament was then declared in interdict by the Pope which remains in effect to this day. This was followed by Christian II's invasion in 1520 in which Sten Sture the younger died. After the Battle of Bogesund and the Stockholm bloodbath in 1520, and the Swedish liberation war, Gustav was elected king in Strängnäs 6 June 1523 and Stockholm's liberation declared at midsummer 1523. Sweden has been free from foreign powers ever since. The process continued another 13 years until the Count's Feud in Denmark in which Gustav and Sweden were very active. When Christian III entered Copenhagen in 1536, the Catholic Church and the Hanseatic League were bankrupt and lost power in the Nordic countries, where the Lutheran Church of Sweden by the Reformation in Sweden obtained an ecclesiastical monopoly and the Church of Denmark by the Reformation in Denmark–Norway and Holstein.

This process largely changed all the old power structures in Sweden, where previously every issue had to be negotiated with powerful nobles. With the rest of the power elite wiped out in the Stockholm bloodbath, Gustav and the parliament had sole control in Sweden.

As a consequence of this, Gustav and all future Swedish kings came to communicate with the population through the king's bailiffs and the Church of Sweden's clergy instead of through the nobility. This meant that central power was manifested through the Battle of Stångebro 1599 with the Linköping Riksdag 1600 and Karl XI's Great Reduction 1680 as the basis for the future Swedish state after the Instrument of Government of 1809.

Many Swedes see Gustav Vasa as the father of the country and he is celebrated as such.

As king
Gustav proved an energetic administrator with a ruthless streak not inferior to his predecessor's, brutally suppressing subsequent uprisings (three in Dalarna – which had once been the first region to support his claim to the throne – one in Västergötland, and one in Småland). He worked to raise taxes and bring about a Reformation in Sweden, replacing the prerogatives of local landowners, noblemen and clergy with centrally appointed governors and bishops. His 37-year rule, which was the longest of an adult Swedish king to that date (subsequently passed by Gustav V and Carl XVI Gustav) saw a complete break with not only the Danish – Norwegian supremacy but also the Roman Catholic Church, whose assets were nationalised, with the Lutheran Church of Sweden established under his personal control. He became the first truly autocratic native Swedish sovereign and was a skilled bureaucrat and propagandist, with tales of his largely fictitious adventures during the liberation struggle still widespread to this day. In 1544, he abolished Medieval Sweden's elective monarchy and replaced it with a hereditary monarchy under the House of Vasa, which held the Swedish throne until 1654. Three of his sons, Eric XIV, John III and Charles IX, held the kingship at different points.

Gustav Vasa has subsequently been labelled the founder of modern Sweden, and the "father of the nation". Gustav liked to compare himself to Moses, whom he believed to have also liberated his people and established a sovereign state. As a person, Gustav was known for ruthless methods and a bad temper, but also a fondness for music and had a certain sly wit and ability to outmaneuver and annihilate his opponents. He founded one of the oldest orchestras of the world, Kungliga Hovkapellet (Royal Court Orchestra); thus Royal housekeeping accounts from 1526 mention twelve musicians including wind players and a timpanist but no string players. Today, Kungliga Hovkapellet is the orchestra of the Royal Swedish Opera.

Early life
Gustav Eriksson, a son of Cecilia Månsdotter Eka and Erik Johansson Vasa, was probably born in 1496. The birth most likely took place in Rydboholm Castle, northeast of Stockholm, the manor house of the father, Erik. The newborn got his name, Gustav, from Erik's grandfather Gustav Anundsson.

Erik Johansson's parents were Johan Kristersson and Birgitta Gustafsdotter of the dynasties Vasa and Sture respectively, both dynasties of high nobility. Birgitta Gustafsdotter was the sister of Sten Sture the Elder, regent of Sweden, and their mother was a half-sister of King Charles VIII of Sweden. Being a relative and ally of uncle Sten Sture, Erik inherited the regent's estates in Uppland and Södermanland when the latter died in 1503. Although a member of a family with considerable properties since childhood, Gustav Eriksson would later be the holder of possessions of a much greater dimension.

Both of Gustav's parents descended from Gregers, the illegitimate son of Birger Jarl; Gustav's father descended from Gregers through his maternal great-grandmother Margareta Karlsdotter, while Gustav's mother descended from him through her father Magnus Karlsson Eka. Additionally, Birgitta Gustafsdotter and Sten Sture (and consequently also Gustav) descended from King Sverker II of Sweden through King Sverker's granddaughter Benedikte Sunesdotter (who was married to Svantepolk Knutsson, son of Duke of Reval).

Supporting the Sture party
Since the end of the 14th century, Sweden had been a part of the Kalmar Union with Denmark and Norway. The Danish dominance in this union occasionally led to uprisings in Sweden. During Gustav's childhood, parts of the Swedish nobility tried to make Sweden independent. Gustav and his father Erik supported the party of Sten Sture the Younger, regent of Sweden from 1512, and its struggle against the Danish King Christian II. Following the battle of Brännkyrka in 1518, where Sten Sture's troops beat the Danish forces, it was decided that Sten Sture and King Christian would meet in Österhaninge for negotiations. To guarantee the safety of the king, the Swedish side sent six men as hostages to be kept by the Danes for as long as the negotiations lasted. However, Christian did not show up for the negotiations, violated the deal with the Swedish side and took the hostages aboard ships carrying them to Copenhagen. The six members of the kidnapped hostage were Hemming Gadh, Lars Siggesson (Sparre), Jöran Siggesson (Sparre), Olof Ryning, Bengt Nilsson (Färla) – and Gustav Eriksson. Gustav was held in Kalø Castle where he was treated very well after promising he would not make attempts to escape. A reason for this gentle treatment was King Christian's hope to convince the six men to switch sides, and turn against their leader Sten Sture. This strategy was successful regarding all men but Gustav, who stayed loyal to the Sture party. In 1519, Gustav Eriksson escaped from Kalø. He fled to the Hanseatic city of Lübeck where he arrived on 30 September. How he managed to escape is not certain, but according to a somewhat likely story, he disguised himself as a bullocky. For this, Gustav Eriksson got the nicknames "King Oxtail" and "Gustav Cow Butt", something he indeed disliked. When a swordsman drank to His Majesty "Gustav Cow Butt" in Kalmar in 1547, the swordsman was killed.

While staying in Lübeck, Gustav could hear about developments in his native Sweden. While he was there, Christian II mobilised to attack Sweden in an effort to seize power from Sten Sture and his supporters. In 1520, the forces of King Christian were triumphant. Sten Sture died in March, but some strongholds, including the Swedish capital Stockholm, were still able to withstand the Danish forces. Gustav left Lübeck on a ship, and was put ashore south of Kalmar on 31 May.

It seems Gustav stayed largely inactive during his first months back on Swedish soil. According to some sources, Gustav received an invitation to the coronation of Christian. This was to take place in the newly captured Stockholm in November. Even though King Christian had promised amnesty to his enemies within the Sture party, including Gustav Eriksson, the latter chose to decline the invitation. The coronation took place on 4 November and days of festivities in a friendly spirit followed. When the celebration had lasted a few days, the castle was locked and the former enemies of King Christian were imprisoned. Accusations against the old supporters of Sten Sture regarding heresy were brought forward. The following day the sentences were announced. During the Stockholm Bloodbath, close to 100 people were executed on Stortorget, among them Gustav Eriksson's father, Erik Johansson, and uncle, Joakim Brahe. Gustav himself was at the time staying at Räfsnäs, close to Gripsholm Castle.

In Dalarna
Gustav Eriksson had reasons to fear for his life and left Räfsnäs. He travelled to the province of Dalarna, in what was then northwestern Sweden. What happened there has been described in Peder Svart's chronicle, which can be described as a strongly biased heroic tale about Gustav Eriksson. The Dalarna adventures of Gustav that could be described as a part of the national heritage of Sweden, can therefore not be verified in a satisfying way. He is supposed to have tried to gather troops among the peasantry in the province, but with little success initially. Being chased by men loyal to king Christian and failing at creating an army to challenge the king, Gustav Eriksson had no other alternative but to flee to Norway. While he made his way from Mora via Lima to Norway, people that had recently turned down Gustav's call for support against the king changed their minds. Representatives of that group caught up with Gustav before he had reached Norway and convinced him to follow them back to Mora. Gustav Eriksson's run towards Norway and back has formed the background to the famous cross-country ski race Vasaloppet.

Swedish War of Liberation
Gustav Eriksson was appointed hövitsman. The rebel force he led grew. In February 1521 it consisted of 400 men, mainly from the area around Lake Siljan. The first significant conflict in the Dissolution of the Kalmar Union took place at Brunnbäck's Ferry in April, where a rebel army defeated an army loyal to the king. The sacking of the city of Västerås and with it controlling important copper and silver mines gave Gustav Vasa resources and supporters flocked to him. Other parts of Sweden, for example the Götaland provinces of Småland and Västergötland, also saw rebellions. The leading noblemen of Götaland joined Gustav Eriksson's forces and, in Vadstena in August, they declared Gustav regent of Sweden.

The election of Gustav Eriksson as a regent made many Swedish nobles, who had so far stayed loyal to King Christian, switch sides. Some noblemen, still loyal to the king, chose to leave Sweden, while others were killed. As a result, the Swedish Privy Council lost old members who were replaced by supporters of Gustav Eriksson. Most fortified cities and castles were conquered by Gustav's rebels, but the strongholds with the best defences, including Stockholm, were still under Danish control. In 1522, after negotiations between Gustav Eriksson's people and Lübeck, the Hanseatic city joined the war against Denmark. The winter of 1523 saw the joint forces attack the Danish and Norwegian areas of Scania, Halland, Blekinge and Bohuslän. During this winter, Christian II was overthrown and replaced by Frederick I. The new king openly claimed the Swedish throne and had hopes Lübeck would abandon the Swedish rebels. The German city, preferring an independent Sweden to a strong Kalmar Union dominated by Denmark, took advantage of the situation and put pressure on the rebels. The city wanted privileges on future trade as well as guarantees regarding the loans they had granted the rebels. The Privy Council and Gustav Eriksson knew the support from Lübeck was absolutely crucial. As a response, the council decided to appoint Gustav Eriksson king.

Election as king

The ceremonial election of the regent Gustav Eriksson as king of Sweden took place when the leading men of Sweden got together in Strängnäs in June 1523. When the councillors of Sweden had chosen Gustav as king, he met with the two visiting councillors of Lübeck. The German representatives supported the appointment without hesitation and declared it an act of God. Gustav stated he had to bow to what was described as the will of God. In a meeting with the Privy Council, Gustav Eriksson announced his decision to accept. In the following ceremony, led by the deacon of Strängnäs, Laurentius Andreae, Gustav swore the royal oath. The next day, bishops and priests joined Gustav in Roggeborgen where Laurentius Andreae raised the holy sacrament above a kneeling Gustav Eriksson. Flanked by the councillors of Lübeck, Gustav Eriksson was brought to Strängnäs Cathedral where the king sat down in the choir with the Swedish privy councillors on one side, and the Lübeck representatives on the other. After the hymn "Te Deum", Laurentius Andreae proclaimed Gustav Eriksson king of Sweden. He was, however, still not crowned. In 1983, in remembrance of the election of Gustav as Swedish king on 6 June, that date was declared the National Day of Sweden.

The capture of Stockholm
Shortly after the events of 1523 in Strängnäs, letters patent were issued to Lübeck and its allied Hanseatic cities, who now were freed from tolls when trading in Sweden. An agreement, designed by Lübeck negotiators, was made with the Danish defenders in Stockholm. On 17 June the rebels could enter the capital city. At Midsummer, a grand entrance of king Gustav was arranged at Söderport, the southern gate of Stockholm. Celebrations followed, including a mass of thanksgiving in Storkyrkan (also known as Stockholm Cathedral) led by Peder Jakobsson. Gustav could now install himself in the Tre Kronor palace.

The war ends
Bailiffs, loyal to the old king Christian, were still holding castles in Finland, a part of Sweden at the time. During the summer and fall of 1523 they all surrendered. The next year, on 24 August 1524, Gustav arrived in Malmö in order to reach a settlement with Denmark-Norway and its king Frederick. The Treaty of Malmö (in Swedish: Malmö recess) had both positive and negative sides to it, from king Gustav's perspective. The treaty meant that Denmark-Norway acknowledged the independence of Sweden. The hopes Gustav had carried of winning further provinces (Gotland and Blekinge) were however scuttled. The treaty marked the end of the Swedish War of Liberation.

The Reformation
After Gustav seized power, the previous Archbishop, Gustav Trolle, who at the time held the post of a sort of chancellor, was exiled from the country. Gustav sent a message to Pope Clement VII requesting the acceptance of a new archbishop selected by Gustav himself: Johannes Magnus.

The Pope sent back his decision demanding that the unlawful expulsion of Archbishop Gustav Trolle be rescinded, and that the archbishop be reinstated. Here Sweden's remote geographical location proved to have a marked impact – for the former Archbishop had been allied with Christian, or at least was considered to have been so allied in contemporary Stockholm, and to reinstate him would be close to impossible for Gustav.

The king let the Pope know the impossibility of the request, and the possible results if the Pope persisted, but – for better or worse – the Pope did persist, and refused to accept the king's suggestions of archbishops. At the time, incidentally and for different reasons, there were also four other unoccupied bishop's seats, where the king made suggestions to the Pope about candidates, but the Pope only accepted one of the candidates. Because the Pope refused to budge on the issue of Gustav Trolle, the king, influenced by Lutheran scholar Olaus Petri, in 1531 took it upon himself to appoint yet another archbishop, namely the brother of Olaus, Laurentius Petri. With this royal act, the Pope lost any influence over the Swedish Church.

In the 1520s, the Petri brothers led a campaign for the introduction of Lutheranism. The decade saw many events which can be seen as gradual introductions of Protestantism, for instance the marriage of Olaus Petri – a consecrated priest – and several texts published by him, advocating Lutheran dogmas. A translation of the New Testament had also been published in 1526. After the reformation, a full translation was published in 1540–41, called the Gustav Vasa Bible. However, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew among Swedish clergymen was not sufficient for a translation from the original sources; instead the work followed the German translation by Martin Luther in 1534.

Gustav Vasa's breaking with the Catholic Church is virtually simultaneous with Henry VIII doing the same in England; both kings acted following a similar pattern, i.e., a prolonged confrontation with the Pope culminating with the king deciding to take his own decisions independently of Rome.

Further reign
Gustav encountered resistance from some areas of the country. People from Dalarna rebelled three times in the first ten years of Gustav's reign, as they considered the king to have been too harsh on everyone he perceived as a supporter of the Danish, and as they resented his introduction of Protestantism. Many of those who had helped Gustav in his war against the Danes became involved in these rebellions and paid for this, several of them with their lives.

Peasants in Småland rebelled in 1542, fuelled by grievances over taxes, church reform and confiscation of church bells and vestments. For several months this uprising caused Gustav severe difficulties in the dense forests. The king sent a letter to the people of the province of Dalarna, requesting that they should circulate letters to every Swedish province, stating their support for the king with their troops, and urging every other province to do the same. Gustav got his troops, with whose help – and, not least, with paid German mercenaries – he managed to defeat the rebels in the spring of 1543.

The leader of the rebels, Nils Dacke, has traditionally been seen as a traitor to Sweden. His own letters and proclamations to fellow peasants focused on the suppression of Roman Catholic customs of piety, the King's requisitions of church bells and church plate to be smelted down for money and the general discontent with Gustav's autocratic measures, and the King's letters indicate that Dacke had considerable military success for several months. Historical records state that Nils was seriously wounded during a battle, taking bullet wounds to both legs; if this is true, his survival may have been surprising in view of contemporary medical techniques. Some sources state that Nils was executed by quartering; others that he was reduced to the state of an outlaw after recovering from his wounds, and killed while trying to escape through the woods on the border between Småland and then Danish Blekinge. It is said that his body parts were displayed throughout Sweden as a warning to other would-be rebels; this is uncertain though his head was likely mounted on a pole at Kalmar. Modern Swedish scholarship has toned down criticism of Nils Dacke, sometimes making him into a hero in the vein of Robin Hood, particularly in Småland.

Difficulties with the continuation of the Church also troubled Gustav Vasa. The 1540s saw him imposing death sentences upon both the Petri brothers, as well as his former chancellor Laurentius Andreae. All of them were however granted amnesty, after spending several months in jail. In 1554–1557, he waged an inconclusive war against Ivan the Terrible of Russia.

End of reign

In the late 1550s, Gustav's health declined. When his grave was opened in 1945, an examination of his corpse revealed that he had suffered chronic infections of a leg and in his jaw.

He gave a so-called "last speech" in 1560 to the chancellors, his children and other noblemen, whereby he encouraged them to remain united. On 29 September 1560, Gustav died and was buried (together with three of his wives, while only two are engraved) in the Cathedral of Uppsala.

Legacy
In Sweden, Gustav Vasa is considered to rank among the country's greatest kings, arguably even the most significant ruler in Swedish history. Having ended foreign domination over Sweden, centralised and reorganised the government, cut religious ties to Rome, established the Swedish Church, and founded Sweden's hereditary monarchy, Gustav Vasa holds a place of great prominence in Swedish history and is a central character in Swedish nationalist narratives. He is often described as a founding father of the modern Swedish state, if not of the nation as such. Historians have nonetheless noted the often brutal methods with which he ruled, and his legacy, though clearly of great and lasting importance, is not necessarily viewed in exclusively positive terms.

Many details of Gustav Vasa's historical record are disputed. In 19th-century Swedish history a folklore developed wherein Gustav was supposed to have had many adventures when he liberated Sweden from the Danes. Today most of these stories are considered to have no other foundation than legend and skilful propaganda by Gustav himself during his time. One such story states he was staying at a close friend's farm to rest for one day during his escape from the Danish army. As he was warming himself in the common room, the Danish soldiers got a tip from one of the farm hands that Gustav was in his landlord's farm house. The Danish soldiers burst into the farm house and began searching in the common room for someone that would fit Gustav's description. As one of the soldiers came close to check Gustav Vasa, all of a sudden the landlady took out a bakery spade and started to hit Gustav and and ordered him to go out and work. The Danish soldier found it amusing and did not realise this "lazy farm boy" was in fact Gustav Vasa himself who managed to slip away from danger and escape death. There are many other stories about Gustav's close encounters with death, however it is questionable if any of his adventures really did happen or were dramatised by Gustav himself; regardless of whether they happened or not, his adventures are still told to this day in Sweden.

The memory of Gustav has been honoured greatly, resulting in embroidered history books, commemorative coins, and the annual ski event Vasaloppet (the largest ski event in the world with 15,000 participants). The city of Vaasa in Finland was named after the royal house of Vasa in 1606. 18th century playwrights and librettists used his biography as the source for some of their works, including the 1739 Gustavus Vasa by Henry Brooke (the first play banned under the Licensing Act 1737, due to Robert Walpole's belief that the play's villain was a proxy for himself) and the 1770 Gustavo primo re di Svezia. The name Gustavus Vasa was also given to Olaudah Equiano, a prominent Black British abolitionist.

Gustav used to be portrayed on the 1,000 kronor note, until he was replaced by Dag Hammarskjöld in June 2016. Gustav has been regarded by some as a power-hungry man who wished to control everything: the Church, the economy, the army and all foreign affairs. But in doing this, he also did manage to unite Sweden, a country that previously had no standardised language, and where individual provinces held a strong regional power. He also laid the foundation for Sweden's professional army that was to make Sweden into a regional superpower in the 17th century.

Gallery
Gustav Vasa had a series of allegorical paintings made during his reign. The originals are lost but watercolor reproductions from the 18th century date remain. Several interpretations have been put forth, including that they show him abolishing the Catholic church, but the main view is that they depict him freeing Sweden from Christian II's control.

Family
Gustav's first wife was Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg (1513–1535), whom he married on 24 September 1531. They had a son:
 * Eric XIV (1533–1577), Duke of Kalmar

On 1 October 1536, he married his second wife, Margareta Leijonhufvud (1514–1551). Their children were:
 * John III (Johan III) (1537–1592), Duke of Finland
 * Katarina (1539–1610), wife of Edzard II, Count of Ostfriesland. A grandmother of Anna Maria of Ostfriesland and great-grandmother of Adolf Frederick II, Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.
 * Cecilia (1540–1627), wife of Christopher II, Margrave of Baden-Rodemachern
 * Magnus (1542–1595), Duke of Östergötland
 * Carl (1544)
 * Anna (1545–1610), wife of George John I, Count Palatine of Veldenz
 * Sten (1546–1547)
 * Sofia (1547–1611), wife of Duke Magnus II of Saxe-Lauenburg
 * Elisabet (1549–1598), wife of Christopher, Duke of Mecklenburg-Gadebusch
 * Charles IX (Carl IX) (1550–1611), Duke of Södermanland

At Vadstena Castle, on 22 August 1552, he married his third wife, Katarina Stenbock (1535–1621).

Other sources

 * Åberg, Alf (1996) Gustav Vasa 500 år / The official anniversary book (Stockholm: Norstedts) ISBN 978-9119611628
 * Larsson, Lars-Olof (2005) Gustav Vasa – Landsfader eller tyrann? (Stockholm: Prima) ISBN 978-9151839042
 * Nieritz, Gustav (2018) Gustavus Vasa, or King and Peasant: With a Historic Sketch and Notes (Forgotten Books )  ISBN 978-0656337927
 * Roberts, Michael  (1968) The Early Vasas: A History of Sweden 1523–1611 (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 978-0521311823
 * Watson, Paul Barron (2011) The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa (British Library, historical print editions) ISBN 978-1241540043

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gustav Vasa


text:
List of cities in Sardinia

Sardinian towns

This is a list of selected cities in Sardinia with local names.

Metropolitan areas
Including Quartu Sant'Elena, Selargius, Assemini, Capoterra, Monserrato, Sestu, Sinnai, Quartucciu, Maracalagonis and Elmas.
 * Cagliari, (population about 450,000)

Provincial administrative capitals

 * Cagliari, Casteddu (population about 160,000)
 * Carbonia
 * Nuoro, Nùgoro
 * Oristano, Aristanis
 * Sassari (population about 130,000)

Other towns and villages

 * Alghero, L'Alguer
 * Arzachena, Alzachena
 * Bitti, Vithi
 * Bonorva, Bonòlva
 * Bosa
 * Castelsardo, Caltheddu
 * Cuglieri, Culiri
 * Dorgali, Durgali
 * Flumini Maggiore, Frùmini Majori
 * Gavoi, Gaboi
 * Guspini, Gùspini
 * Iglesias, Igrèsias
 * La Maddalena, Madalena
 * Lanusei, Lanusèi
 * Macomer, Macumere
 * Mogoro, Mogoru
 * Mamoiada, Mamujada
 * Olbia, Terranòa/Tarranòa
 * Oliena, Uliana
 * Orune, Orùne
 * Ozieri, Othieri
 * Perfugas, Peifugas
 * Ploaghe, Piaghe
 * Porto Torres, Posthudorra
 * Posada, Pasada
 * Pozzomaggiore, Puthumajore
 * Pula
 * Quartu Sant'Elena, Quartu Sant'Aleni
 * San Teodoro, Santu Diadoru
 * Sanluri, Seddori
 * Sant'Antioco, Sant'Antiogu
 * Santa Teresa Gallura, Lungoni
 * Selargius, Cedraxius
 * Siniscola, Thiniscole
 * Tempio Pausania, Tèmpiu
 * Terralba, Tarraba
 * Teulada
 * Tortolì, Tortuelie
 * Urzulei, Orthullè
 * Villaputzu, Biddeputzi
 * Villacidro, Biddexidru

title: List of cities in Sardinia


text:
Talk:Montoneros

About catholic profile
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)

 * Correct.Agre22 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)agre22

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.”"
 * 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."
 * 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)

Montoneros role with Eva Peron's return
Didn't the Montoneros bring Evita's body back from Spain? -- Andrew Parodi 14:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * So, they negotiated the return of the body. Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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
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)

 * 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)

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
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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

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)

Number of victims under Videla
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)

Spanish version
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
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
 * 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)

The kidnapping of BYB in 1974
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

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

JustinAKlunz
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)

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

Neutrality.
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)
 * 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)

Purpose
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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)

 * Text and page, it's all there. Cambalachero (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Of course not, that's not what the book says, but what you interpret it.--Falerístico (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Montoneros as a Terrorist Organization
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Montoneros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive to http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aSkPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kYUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2970,2877456&dq=guerrillas+argentina+police+1976

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140224233740/https://www.elortiba.org:80/pdf/Memoria-de-ex-presas-y-presos-politicos.pdf to http://www.elortiba.org/pdf/Memoria-de-ex-presas-y-presos-politicos.pdf

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812170847/http://www.elortiba.org/pdf/amorin_montoneros.pdf to http://www.elortiba.org/pdf/amorin_montoneros.pdf

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) 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141026215827/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=76cfda83-c039-4464-bc7d-b4ee054e8603 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=76cfda83-c039-4464-bc7d-b4ee054e8603
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421183204/http://www.prensajudia.com/shop/detallenot.asp?notid=7276 to http://www.prensajudia.com/shop/detallenot.asp?notid=7276
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923202148/http://www.chacodiapordia.com/noticia/91416/impondran-el-nombre-noemi-esther-giannotti-de-molfino-a-esquina-de-resistencia to http://www.chacodiapordia.com/noticia/91416/impondran-el-nombre-noemi-esther-giannotti-de-molfino-a-esquina-de-resistencia

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) 03:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Montoneros