Talk:Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche

Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (moved from fringe section)

The Resistencia Ancestral Mapuche (Spanish: Mapuche Ancestral Resistance, RAM) is an organization in Argentina that wants territories that they claim belonged to the Mapuche indigenous peoples, and who uses violence and vandalism to voice their protests. Some call them a terrorist organization, others prefer to use more politically correct terms. However, I'm having problems with some users that frequently add a fringe theory that says that the RAM does not exist, and that it would be just a big deception crafted by intelligence agencies in order to use political repression. I'm not misrepresenting the edits: see the current lead. And in support of this theory we have the senator Pino Solanas, a local priest, and some journalists. A deeper check shows that Solanas belongs to a minor left wing party, that got less than 1.5% of the vote in the previous primary elections and could not even run in the main elections (see here). The local priest is just that. And those "journalists" belong to unreliable sites with very poor reputation, such as "Página 12" or "La Vaca").

Real and noteworthy politicians do acknowledge the existence and actions of this group, such as the vicepresident, The Justicialist Party (the main party of the opposition), province governor Alberto Weretilneck (a province governor is an office analogous to that of a US state governor), the Chilean government, etc.

We may acknowledge the existence of this fringe theory, but in a lower section, treated as such, and confronted with the mainstream views. Not as it done now, that they cast doubts on the existence of the group everywhere. Cambalachero (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and the user adding this has not taken part in the discussion, either here or at the article talk page (where John Carter agreed that the existence of the group is well established). Even more, Alejandro6 has been here, asked me for the right place to voice his opinions and made some other edits, but did not explain his edits anywhere. So I moved on and removed the fringe theory.

By the way, I also found this, the original manifest of the RAM, back in 2014. Even more, I also found this, the reaction of Página 12 in 2014 when the RAM released this manifest. That source, that now says that the RAM is some kind of deception from the government, did not say the same back then. Cambalachero (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC

Hi. I did wrote here a couple days ago, I just wasn't aware of how I had to do it. Ok, first of all, my edit of the article was based not on my opinion on the subject, but it consisted on make it as closest on info and direction to the version in spanish as I can. Pagina 12 is not a very poor reputation site, but the neswpaper where the most important journalists of Argentina worked in the last 30 years (and the link to the 2014 aricle of Pág 12 you found stats the unusual and doubtful nature of all this right from the title). There is many contributors to the spanish version of the article, not just me, and many other sources too; I think user Cambalachero 's edits reflects their own political view of the subject; Either he is right, an all of the contributors -not just myself- to the spanish version of the article are wrong, or visceversa.(Briefly, the ram itself is a fringe, the whole mapuche comunity denounce that to be investigated, cause the gov whitout prove of their existence present them to the press as representative of them, so they can criminalize any mapuche protest against the sell of their lands to privates, i.e. Benetton. This week a police unit on an illegal land eviction opened fire on a mapuche family and murdered one, of course none of them was armed. the Comission of Human Rights is investigating all this right now.)I'll invite other users to this discussion, I just dont't know if they speak english. Regards. Alejandro6

So, you are basically saying that we should report that the RAM does not exist because another wikipedia does so. Well, Wikipedia itself (any of them) is not a reliable source, and can not be used as a precedent for verifiability. That's because anyone may edit an article and insert any fringe theory in it. And that counts double for the article of the RAM in wikipedia in Spanish, as one of those users is... you!

I have also noticed this and this, an inappropiate form of canvassing (and note that Wikipedia in Spanish has a similar policy, so your action would have not been allowed there either) Cambalachero (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that what was I supposed to do, to bring the other contributors so this is not personal vs personal view; But ok... what I'm saying, again, is ram does not exist because there is No proves of his existence...and if you are argentine, you know that false flag illegal operations by intelligence services is habitual, a few months ago in the protest march for Santiago Maldonado case in buenos aires I saw a police group dress as civilians, screaming anarquia(¿?) then breaking cameras of those journalists who doesn't support the gob (here a link to a right wing journalist talking about this, not an oppositor of the gov) [1]; it happened since the 70's (e.g. alfredo astiz); So far there is 2 dead people, at least one murdered by police men and NOT A SINGLE PROVE of an armed mapuche guerrilla...this idea could be pretty laughable if there wasn't people murdered. Here, a deputy, not an oppositor but a member of the actual government, is scandalized and worried about all this:[[2]] Is this enough for you? What you are doing should not be allowed. alejandro6 (talk)

Of course that you can call other people, but not the way you did it. Not calling people who support your point of view, and asking them to support you. And, before you continue crying that "there is no proof", you should reply to my previous post. There you have the RAM manifest, the RAM itself announcing their existence and intentions. Besides, like any fringe theory, this one falls in pieces once you check it just a bit. Question 1: the RAM became noteworthy for the press during the Maldonado case, but they have been active since 2014. Back then, the president was not Macri, but Cristina Kirchner. Does this mean that this alleged plot to make the mapuches be seen as criminals was arranged by Kirchner? Question 2: What about the Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco? What about the Mapuche conflict? Is that supposed to be another forgery? Cambalachero (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you are getting agressive now. (Cry?). You please indicate me how to call other people, I called 2 of the main editors of the article because of the sources they used. However you just made it clear what is this all about, you are defending your political party view (which is dangerous and racist) by bringing the macri vs. kirchner stuff that has nothing to do here. For the last time, where do you have a proof (cause the government doesn't) that there is a mapuche armed guerrilla instead of a fringe of the intelligence service? Mapuches barely can buy shoes. RAM manifest? done by who? Give me a link to any confiscated fire wheapons by the law, or any report of the true identities of those 5 masked big guys that set fire right in front of the police, then walking to a truck and leaving with the police not even trying to arrest them. Of course it started under C. Kirchner government; that's why many organizations standed against of implementation of Proyecto X, there is even an article here, just go read it [[3]]. Me and other users did posted links to interviews and declarations of real representants of Mapuche communities giving their full names speaking about all this, (besides deputies -not even leftists, god help us...), journalists and the bishop of bariloche) not some wiki entry -about chilean events ¿?- as you are bringing. Here is the Major of Bariloche talking about this, he doesn't know about the ram nor think any incident had to do with it [4], However I think it's useless to explain you anything, cause you are doing propaganda (a dangerous one, being already a murdered mapuche 3 days ago) here, and you should be banned by vandalism. (Edit, just on more link that you will surely ignore, another deputy claims RAM is a made-up enemy[5]; Alejandro6

In English, the word "cry" is not only for sheding tears (Spanish: "llorar"), but also for shouting and yelling. Of course that not all mapuches are members of the RAM, as that mayor said. Similarily, it is frequently pointed in the US that not all muslims are related to islamic terrorism. However, that doesn't mean that islamic or mapuche terrorism does not exist. The mayor is not saying that, you are misquoting him. María Soria is saying that, all right, but you are correct, we'll ignore her. Keep on reading, she says that it's all part of a conspiracy to conceal news from the press, and when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you (as well as the law) think there is an illegal fact or organization going on you most prove it, (specially if there is a murdered involved) not the other way around. Still you (or the government) don't have a prove that any Mapuche killed anyone, nor there is an armed mapuche gueriilla in Argentina(btw if you honestly believe such delusional thing I don't think this conversation can go any further). The one real fact so far is that gendarmerie murdered one mapuche 3 days ago (and we still don't know what happened to Santiago Maldonado. And, the we'll ignore her about the link to the deputy I posted, I want to know who is WE, and why you are unable of doing your vandalism on the spanish section of the same article on wikipedia as you are doing here. Alejandro6

• proposal Move this discussion to the talk page of RAM. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

it's ok with me to move it; I would prefer not to do it myself to prevent mistakes, I'm still not entirely familiar with wikipedia functions. To Cambalachero, you said it, when someone voices a conspiracy theory, it does not matter who is her. that's exactly what you, part of argentinean gov. and some press are doing. That's my point. Alejandro6

Dates?

This article could use some dates. When were they active? Are they still active? Etc... --ZiaLater (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It is active today, but I don't know when was it created, so I can't fill the "dates" field of the infobox --Cambalachero (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there any evidence to claim that the RAM exists?

Different organizations of the Mapuche people have written a document saying that the RAM does not exist and that it is a creation of the intelligent services to accuse the Mapuche of terrorism and allow the Argentine government to use against them the Anti-Terrorist law. See here and here.EvaristoDLR (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just a pathetic conspiracy theory. Three words: Facundo Jones Huala. How does he fit in that scenario? Cambalachero (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In this interview, Fernando Jones Huala says that his brother Facundo is not the leader of RAM and that he does not know what RAM is. EvaristoDLR (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I just added three independent sources that claim the RAM is not an existing organization: Fernando Jones Huala, the mapuche community and the head of the local Diocese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pozzoe (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have found this: the original manifest of the RAM in 2014, when they announced their existence and intentions. Cambalachero (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

C'mon, only exist that "manifest" only published by a right wing group (Perfil). This article have almost the same link (from TN Noticias) in all places, and everybody know that this Media Group not are very objetive, all know what political position have181.29.116.218 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no proves of the existence of any kind of guerrilla active in Argentina, this particular organization is not a judicial case, nor any fire wheapons has been ever founded; outside stories a group of local media, this guerrilla does Not exist.

This article is completely against Wikipedia policies --Agustin6 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Just for the record, we tend to capitalize adjectival forms of proper names, like those of countries, in English. Based on the material I've seen so far, I would have to say that the existence of this group is well-established enough based on the sources which describe it as really existing that the allegations to the contrary could reasonably be seen as qualifying as WP:FRINGE. It might not necessarily be required to not mention that idea in the artic!e or lede at all, but I think probably only as a theory not very widely accepted. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I must ask you to re-check the sources of proves of their existence, cause the argentinian government itself doesn`t have any. This is a pretty dangerous subject that generates strong division in arg. society, due that, under the theory that a supposed mapuche armed guerrilla is active in Argentine, patricia bullrich, head of police is repressing and persecuting the mapuche community; gendarmerie murdered a mapuche this week and shot a deputy today, <ref>http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Causa_de_Rafael_Nahuel_y_los_mapuches_del_lago_Mascardi#Micaela_Johana_Colhuan<ref>, <ref>http://www.laizquierdadiario.com/Tras-la-represion-el-mensaje-del-diputado-Raul-Godoy<ref>, while she refuses to give explanations to de Deputy's Human Rights Commission, so many politicians (from all parties) and journalists think this is going dangerously out of hand (meanwhile not a single gun has been found on any mapuche communities). Thanks.alejandro6(talk)

Gendarmerie shot a deputy? What the hell are you talking about? Cambalachero (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Police from neuquen. Yesterday. Besides not being able tell apart minor vandalism from a armed guerrilla you can't read? how are you allowed to contribute here? <ref>https://www.laizquierdadiario.com/Raul-Godoy-Sabian-quien-era-me-buscaron-y-me-dispararon-por-la-espalda<ref> <ref>https://www.pagina12.com.ar/81347-otra-vez-las-balas<ref>.

John Carter the thing is, if the gov with help of some media, can instaurate the surrealistic idea of an armed mapuche guerrilla infunding terror, they can use the anti terrorism law so they are able to skip any legal process to prosecution [[6]], by the point someone start to ask so where are the guns? it will be too late, their lands will be already sold. (and the same method can could be used in any kind of protest) alejandro6(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That was not the gendarmerie, it was the provincial police of Neuquen, under the command of governor Omar Gutierrez (MPN, unrelated to the national government). Also, it was during a union protest (and the deputy was among the protesters when the police dispersed them, as ordered by a judicial ruling), so it is completely unrelated to the RAM. Besides, according to this article, it is also said that Godoy was not just a casual guy among the protesters, he was actively encouraging them to take violent action against the police. But, in any case, the whole incident has nothing to do with either the RAM or the national gendarmerie. Cambalachero (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

the GEOF depends on Dirección General de Terrorismo Internacional y Delitos Complejos de la PFA. . Still waiting to know where is a mapuche guerrilla, or guns, or anyhthing. (All this is quite bizarre, why you defend the illegal selling of lands of your own country to private foreigners even at cost of human lifes?) alejandro6 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

See here Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

They are scared to death, he says in that link you give me We want to know who they are and their place of origin, because otherwise they are not Mapuche ", he emphasized and denounced:" There are infiltrators ". See this [7] ...just googled 'antonio fermín' the spokesman of the community that presented the request in your link, he says textually (translated) We condemn and repudiate in a categorical way the criminal methods of RAM that act against our own indigenous brothers and we demand that all hooded men be identified to demonstrate that they are not machupes, but impostors who arrogate a representativeness of our people that they do not have. (he means, they are intelligence services, and if tomorrow they kill someone, the press will attack us and the gendarmerie will litterally kill us, so we better ask in the media we want to know the identities of this bunch of masked police guys ASAP) ..And the picture shows hammers and axes... You get the point? come on Cambalachero, I know you can understand what is this all about. Alejandro6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand what he says. When he says that the RAM are not mapuches, he's using the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. The RAM would not be Mapuches because "no true mapuches would do such a thing". Cambalachero (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No; He is saying, litterally We demand that all hooded men be identified to demonstrate that they are not mapuches. And again, where are the guns? Here is another link, this time a right-wing, usualy close to the gov media, saying there is no proof of his existence [://noticias.perfil.com/2017/12/07/todo-sobre-la-resistencia-ancestral-mapuche-peligro-o-ficcion-oficial/] Alejandro6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

That article discusses the actual threat level posed by the RAM, suggesting that it may be lower than usually reported. The idea that the RAM "does not exist" is only mentioned as an extreme idea, and attributed to its proposers. Cambalachero (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting the proofs; guns, anything. Alejandro6 —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Logo

That Logo on the article was originally created by an user and uploaded, that is against the rules of wikipedia. --Agustin6 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Agustin6, maybe the user that created it had some interest in making the organization appear real.. Sietecolores (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

See Diario Popular, TN and Radio Chubut. They all have photos of the logo: the mapuche icon (see File:Flag of the Mapuches.svg) with a sickle to the left and a shotgun to the right. Cambalachero (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Sietecolores yes (besides it makes no sense that Jones Huala said that they got no guns). --Agustin6 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Agustin6, you have removed the logo once again saying "see talk page", and your only comment in the talk page is a "yes" to a personal attack to another user. You have to counter the arguments I have provided. Cambalachero (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The image is based on [8] and [9]. So considering the many modifications including rifle type, changing proportions and colouring its an original work that can not be adscribed to the supposed group. It should not be in the article. Sietecolores (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Alleged group, status unknown

There have been discussions in the past about this group. Yet there is no consensus. The Spanish version that recieved much more attention is more well-thought. What I am saying now is that as long as its existence is not proven it is an alleged group whose status is unknown. That should be clear. This is not just the article of an organization for which there are few sources, this the article of an organization whose existence is dubious. Sietecolores (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dubious according to whom? Check the first thread. On one side we have the national government, the provincial government, the government of Chile, the mainstream press, etc. On the other, we have some non-notable guys, some obscure politicians craving for attention, and some web pages dedicated to fringe theories. That's a textbook example of a fringe theory. We have a policy for them, Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Wikipedia in Spanish does not have such a policy, and so those kind of things are overlooked. Cambalachero (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked the first thread an concerns is roughly simmilar, no consensus was reached. What are the realiable sources (WP:RS) for its existence, who its founder is and if its active as all? This is a quation you still haven't answered. And, there is a reason why Spanish Wikipedia is better on this kind of topics, its because there is more scruttiny there on local topics. Sietecolores (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is already referenced. If you don't like or agree with what the mainstream sources say, that's neither here nor there: wikipedia reports things according to mainstream sources. Yes, sources like Clarín, La Nación and TN. As for Wikipedia in Spanish, its reputation is out of topic here, but you should have in mind that wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, specially in political topics (see here), so "another wikipedia article said this" is a very weak argument. Let's try something better: as you are the one who is disputing things, why don't you point some reliable source that says those things? Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For example, one of the sources in the article in Spanish is this one: "Garavano admits that there is no judicial confirmation of the existence of the RAM". But then, we go and read the article. Garavano simply avoids giving a straight answer by himself, and points that it's up to the judiciary to rule such things. The source then takes its own conclusions, saying that Garavano said something he had never actually said, and even takes this awful editorial interference to the headlines. That doesn't sound like a reliable source, it sounds like Kent Brockman news. Cambalachero (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Then we have this one: "Solanas dice que la RAM es una construcción de los servicios de inteligencia". According to him, it's all part of a big conspiracy of Macri to create a straw enemy to justify police repression to remove the indigenous peoples from their territories. In other words, a conspiracy theory coming from an obscure politician, who tried to run for senator and did not even got enough votes in the primary election to be able to run in the main one. Hardly enough to bother about. It's not enough to cite a fact, and it's pointless to report Solanas' reaction because of his obscurity. Note as well that it has been almost a year since Solanas said that, and the alleged plan to remove the mapuches has not been carried out, or even attempted. Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The other one, titled "Vocero de mapuches de Cushamen dijo sospechar que la RAM sea obra de servicios de inteligencia", is now a dead link. However, I have searched for it and found this. Antonio Fermín, spokesman of the mapuches of Cushamen, critizised the RAM, as it makes the mapuches look bad. But he does not deny their existence, consider them a forgery, or put the blame on anyone but the RAM. I don't know if it's the same man than in the dead link, but I doubt that Cushamen had several spokesmen and that they would provide conflicting views about a topic so important for them. Cambalachero (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"Ya se sabe quién mató a Rafael Nahuel" is another dead link. From a website called "Cohete a la luna" (Spanish: "Rocket to the moon"). Is this a joke? Cambalachero (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Sietecolores is right; Cambalachero You should not make edits or we must make a denounce about your behaviour. There is no judiciary case or proves of any of this supposed information of those media goups; and there is false information proven too.--Agustin6 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

About Garavano, he says is "what there was, was a political statement by this Command that identified him (the RAM) in several facts, and it seems to me that we must let the judicial cases be those that advance in the investigations", so the title is right, there is no judicial confirmation. It's not a cpnspiracy from Macri, but a conspiracy of the chilean DINA -people has been fired because of this-, that inteligence services of Argentina used. (I'm going to add it on the article).--Agustin6 (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not impressed at all. See Wikipedia:Coatrack articles. All of that is just a report about the "Operation Hurricane" in Chile, completely out of topic here. No sources link Bullrich to that scandal more than in a mere tangencial way. You added that "the evidence was incorporated into the 180-page protocol drafted by specialists from the Ministry of Security on the "Mapuche subversion" in the region", and then referenced it with the report itself. That's a primary source, see the related policy here. It clearly says: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." But even then, I have searched for "Huracán" in it: the only result is a report of which people were facing judicial cases in Chile related to the operation hurricane (something that doesn't get invalidated by the outcome of said judicial case). A search for the word "Carabineros" also gave a single result, someone accused of doing something to the Chilean carabineros. So, which is your rationale to justify that the report was based on info from the operation hurricane? Note, by the way, that the judicial case that discovered forged evidences only talks about that specific case, and it doesn't even suggest that the CAM itself could be a forgery. There isn't any evidence either that the presidency of Chile was directly involved, or that the Chilean president ordered it. So far it's a scandal involving the carabineros, but only them. Which means that diplomatic meetings between government officials do not prove anything in that regard. Cambalachero (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no judicial case about this guerrilla, it only exists on fake news of a small group of media and in your own head, and you deleted (again) an entire section with their sources; Cambalachero you been warned;

Sietecolores if you know the procedure let's make the report about this, regards.--Agustin6 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Quechua?

Accusing an indigenous militant group of hatred against another indigenous community is pretty inflammatory, and I don't see any source for that claim. There should be a source or it should be removed. 169.233.186.233 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing. I'll remove it now. Charles Essie (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)