Talk:Argentine National Gendarmerie

Edits by Necrothesp

Necrothesp has kindly written on my talk page regarding some edits he made and my reversion. I am continuing the discussion here. Mesoso 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you have chosen to revert almost all my edits to this article. If there are better translations of the rank titles then please add them, but it is far more useful to have the actual ranks than some faux English version. If the Spanish ranks are incorrect then I apologise, but they were taken directly from the main rank insignia website.

The "rank insignia website" (rank insignia website) is not a very good source and has some mistakes. It does not really constitute a good source for wikipedia in the case of disagreement. The English translations are not "faux", they are translations; if you do not like translations that is your problem, this is English Wikipedia. Mesoso 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, if they're wrong then change them, don't just revert the whole lot. Also note that it is usual to capitalise an abbreviated form of a proper name when referring to it in that form (e.g. it should be Gendarmerie throughout, not gendarmerie).

Gendarmerie is a common noun, not a proper noun, so is not normally capitalised except in titles. It can be capitalised as a shortened version of the organisation's title (therefore a proper noun), if you insist, but i think this is not really the best use of capitals.Mesoso 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You have also delinked links which I linked.

I do not believe i deleted any link which was not elsewhere in the article, if i did i apologise.Mesoso 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Groupment is a term used in English for a unit, while grouping is not.

This is not correct. Groupment is not in normal english usage and i have never heard it in english. Collins Spanish dictionary translates agrupacion as: (a) group, grouping, association; gathering; union; group, ensemble (b) grouping, gathering, coming together. NO mention whatsoever of your very bizzare word "groupment", which is a French word really. The translation is not bizzare, unless because you feel a need for the GNA to use a unit title you are familiar with already. Grouping is the unit name the GNA uses whether you like it or not.

If one is going to translate terms (and I would actually rather not - information is more useful in its original form) then it is more useful to use actual English terms than bizarre literal translations which make no sense in English.

Whether you like to translate or not is irrelevant, this is English wikipedia. Your like or dislike of Spanish is irrelevant. "Information is more useful in its original form" if it is in an appropriate language which everyone understands : Here that means English.

The Spanish name of the organisation should take precedence in the first paragraph, since that is its real name. Our policy is to use English for the title, if there is a common English name, not throughout the article.

NO it is not "the real name", it is just the real name in Spanish. Wikipedia: naming conventions (use English) is clear on this, disagree on that page and get the policy changed if you want. Argentine National Gendarmerie is the real name, in English. Policy is to use English throughout. For future reference, on English Wikipedia, it is the foreign language which goes in brackets.

If there are mistakes then address them, but don't just revert unless there has been vandalism. This is really not good manners. -- Necrothesp 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not "bad manners" to revert mistakes, it is adressing them. I hope you will be less annoyed now that i have explained the reversion of your errors. Mesoso 17:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware that this is English Wikipedia, thank you very much. I am English. It's my native language. However, just because it is English Wikipedia does not mean we have to translate everything into English.

Of course it does, where translation is possible. English Wikipedia is for English-speakers, not Spanish-speakers.

This is a rather odd habit that seems to be largely confined to somewhat insular Americans, and not the rest of the English-speaking world.

???? This is a ridiculous statement.

Wikipedia's prime function is to provide information.

Yes, to English-speakers.

It is not providing the best information to provide English translations without the original. If I want to know what the GNA calls a Lieutenant, it is far more useful for me (or any other researcher) to see that they call him a Primer Alférez than some translation.

He isn't a Lieutenant, he is a first Ensign. You may wish him to be a Lieutenant for your convenience, but he isn't.

That's what I want to find out, not someone's opinion of how it might be translated, since that might vary immensely (and the translations of rank titles frequently do vary immensely, in my experience). That's information. I also fail to see why you have removed my division of the ranks into their actual divisions. What possible purpose can this serve?

If you cared to actually read the naming conventions, you would see that this refers to the title of the article only, not the text within the article.

It refers to the name of the subject of the article. It is self-evident that the name used in the title is that to be used throughout the text. The page naming conventions does not imply in any way that it refers only to the title of the article only, as you falsely claim.

If you wish to quote conventions at me then please quote a convention which applies to my edits, not one which does not, and do not use it to back up your own personal opinion. "Policy is to use English throughout" you say. Really? Where does it say this? "For future reference, on English Wikipedia, it is the foreign language which goes in brackets." What? This is just plain arrogance, I'm afraid.

How on earth is it arrogance for an English encyclopedia to be in English? You make no sense.

This is your opinion, not any sort of policy. Please don't represent it as being one and talk down to those who disagree with you. The convention you quote actually says: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known". It does not say that the English version should come first. The official name of the organisation is obviously its name in Spanish, and that should come first.

Now you are just not thinking. If the title must be in English, it is very obvious that the English comes first. Every article begins with a repetition of its title.

In fact, the Manual of Style actually quotes: "The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: "River of Silver"), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes [La] Plata River". You may notice that the Spanish name comes first! So your claims about policy seem to have no support.

The state of the River Plate article is irrelevant, it is not a policy page. It also refers to a place which is a different matter entirely.

And just to back this up, a direct quote from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:"In the English-language Wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first, sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it, and sometimes not". That's pretty unequivocal. It's a value judgment. And in my personal value judgment the original language version should take precedence. You may disagree, but making sweeping pronouncements claiming falsely that Wikipedia policy supports you is not helpful to agreement.

Your quote from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles is entirely disingenuous. The words prior to your quote are :

"Use other languages sparingly

It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms."

This clearly and unambiguously favours use of English, with foreign terms included as "EXTRA INFORMATION". This is why the foreign language, not the English, goes in brackets, in line with policy, as I said. Your interpretation "It's a value judgment" is not in line with the bold-type statement on that page Use other languages sparingly.

Yes, groupment is an Anglicisation of the French word groupement. That does not remove the fact that it is in usage for military units in English, whereas "grouping" is not. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a group" and gives the example of "a national [U.S.] military unit of 1,300 men". So hardly bizarre, right? Unless you do not accept the OED as a source of the English language. It is, as I stated, far more useful in translations to use terms which are used in this context in English rather than a term which is not. Literal translations are not always the best translations. And in any case, this is a literal translation, as groupement in French can be translated as "grouping", and groupment is a direct borrowing from French.

The word groupment is used only obscurely by the US (according to you, not in my Oxford dictionary, what edition did you use?). It is a bizzare word, rarely if ever used, (only 9120 search results on internet, mainly in French, compared to 15 million search results for grouping) and clearly less common than grouping, a normal english word. It is also simply not a translation of agrupacion, and you offer no dictionary that says it is.

By doing a mass revert, you have also reverted my corrections of spelling and grammatical errors (e.g. I changed "Non-commisioned" to "Non-commissioned" - which I think you'll find is correct English). That's what I meant by saying it was bad manners to simply revert without addressing actual "errors" (which actually appear to simply be missing off an acute in alférez - hardly a serious mistake!). -- Necrothesp 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-commissioned is indeed correct, I shall avoid reverting that one. I see no other valid correction you made.

In conclusion, my reversions and statements have been fully in line with the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which clearly states, as a heading to an entire section, Use other languages sparingly; and in line with Wikipedia: naming conventions (use English) which evidently discusses the naming of the article's subject. Wikipedia in English should clearly be in English. Mesoso 17:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

Since we are getting nowhere with this, you continue to quote policies in support of your actions which do not support your actions, you appear to somewhat misunderstand the fact that Wikipedia should be in English (it is written in English, but that does not mean it should not include foreign language terms and even give them prominence when they are useful), your whole attitude is far from being conducive to coming to any sort of agreement, and I have no intention of getting into a pointless revert war with you, I have asked for comments from the rest of the community. One thing I would say though, since you dispute my sources, is that I am using the current online edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. So the fact that your edition does not include the term is neither here nor there. And also, incidentally, I would prefer it if you did not change my postings on this page. I posted my answer as a whole, as reiterated below. By breaking it up you have changed the context. -- Necrothesp 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware that this is English Wikipedia, thank you very much. I am English. It's my native language. However, just because it is English Wikipedia does not mean we have to translate everything into English. This is a rather odd habit that seems to be largely confined to somewhat insular Americans, and not the rest of the English-speaking world. Wikipedia's prime function is to provide information. It is not providing the best information to provide English translations without the original. If I want to know what the GNA calls a Lieutenant, it is far more useful for me (or any other researcher) to see that they call him a Primer Alférez than some translation. That's what I want to find out, not someone's opinion of how it might be translated, since that might vary immensely (and the translations of rank titles frequently do vary immensely, in my experience). That's information. I also fail to see why you have removed my division of the ranks into their actual divisions. What possible purpose can this serve?

If you cared to actually read the naming conventions, you would see that this refers to the title of the article only, not the text within the article. If you wish to quote conventions at me then please quote a convention which applies to my edits, not one which does not, and do not use it to back up your own personal opinion. "Policy is to use English throughout" you say. Really? Where does it say this? "For future reference, on English Wikipedia, it is the foreign language which goes in brackets." What? This is just plain arrogance, I'm afraid. This is your opinion, not any sort of policy. Please don't represent it as being one and talk down to those who disagree with you. The convention you quote actually says: "The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known". It does not say that the English version should come first. The official name of the organisation is obviously its name in Spanish, and that should come first. In fact, the Manual of Style actually quotes: "The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: "River of Silver"), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes [La] Plata River". You may notice that the Spanish name comes first! So your claims about policy seem to have no support.

And just to back this up, a direct quote from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:"In the English-language Wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first, sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it, and sometimes not". That's pretty unequivocal. It's a value judgment. And in my personal value judgment the original language version should take precedence. You may disagree, but making sweeping pronouncements claiming falsely that Wikipedia policy supports you is not helpful to agreement.

Yes, groupment is an Anglicisation of the French word groupement. That does not remove the fact that it is in usage for military units in English, whereas "grouping" is not. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "a group" and gives the example of "a national [U.S.] military unit of 1,300 men". So hardly bizarre, right? Unless you do not accept the OED as a source of the English language. It is, as I stated, far more useful in translations to use terms which are used in this context in English rather than a term which is not. Literal translations are not always the best translations. And in any case, this is a literal translation, as groupement in French can be translated as "grouping", and groupment is a direct borrowing from French.

By doing a mass revert, you have also reverted my corrections of spelling and grammatical errors (e.g. I changed "Non-commisioned" to "Non-commissioned" - which I think you'll find is correct English). That's what I meant by saying it was bad manners to simply revert without addressing actual "errors" (which actually appear to simply be missing off an acute in alférez - hardly a serious mistake!). -- Necrothesp 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to not reply earlier, i've been busy.

Your request for comment seems very reasonable, I think it is a sensible way to deal with the dispute. I think the gendarmerie isn't really history or geography, it is more society, or perhaps politics. But anyway we'll see what comes of it.

I have tried to include relevant information from your version in my latest version. (I hope you have seen that!) Although i think "superior officers" and "chief officers" have been mixed up, we should check that (the former is generally the Spanish equivalent to field officers, while the latter normally designates the very highest police ranks).

As far as disputing sources is concerned, I dispute that "groupment" appears anywhere in any dictionary whatsoever as a translation of agrupacion, and this translation is thus your original research. Asking the source of your definition of "groupment" was not disputing, more a reasonable enquiry! The US usage of groupment is indeed in the online OED, as an example of one usage from 1953.

As regards breaking up your comments, i think my indenting makes your original whole clear to read on its own, and in no way changes the context. However if you disagree, then i'll put comments at the end, I would not want you to think i will use your comments unfairly.

Mesoso 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Gentlemen: After seeing your RfC, I look at the article, and it is quite good. I made a few minor spelling changes, which I think are correct. Also, I suggest that "Commandant" might better translate into english as "Commander". Note that ranking in the British Royal Navy, as well as the U.S. Navy have officer rankings of Liutenant Commander and Commander, prior to Captain. Perhaps that works in this case, perhaps not.

It looks as though you have worked through your differences, and have a good article.

If you feel things or Okay, if you could go to the WP:RfC page and remove your request, that would be nice. If there are still issues, and you feel I may be of assistance, please feel free to let me know. Atom 22:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, apparently the issues are not resolved. I reviewed the history. It seems to me that the differences between what you both seek are relatively minor. Is a compromise possible? Are their differences based on the facts presented, or are we just looking at formatting and language issues? Atom 02:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through the comments here again, as well as the article, and reviewed the WP:MOS.

I am no one special, and just a peer, so forgive me if I ever sound pedantic, it it not my intention. I can see that both of you have done very good work, and so what you have in common is a concern for the quality and accuracy of the article. And, in fact, that can't be criticized in this article. I think the differences are fairly minor, and if both of you can compromise a bit, we can resolve the issue without affecting the quality of the article.

Another point is that I am assuming we are all working with good faith, and all recognize that no one "owns" the article. I have put a great deal of work into many articles, and had to compromise my preferred edit to others in order to let the article reach a group consensus. I know we can do that here.

My first inclination reading through the article, before reading the talk page was to see the name of the article, and the intro paragraph listed as "Gendarmería Nacional Argentina", since that is the name of the agency the article discusses. It just feels more natural. I thought about it a bit, and reviewed the WP:MOS, and compared to a few other articles, and then came to the conclusion that the article is in English, and an Eglish translation, and indexed (titled) as "Argentine National Gendarmerie". The MOS has this quote in it "The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: "River of Silver"), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes [La] Plata River" as an example of how to title an article.

However, the article is, in fact, "Argentine National Gendarmerie". SO, as much as it makes sense, I think that a compromise on this point might need to be that the index, and title remain "Argentine National Gendarmerie", with the spanish translation, as it appears currently. Also, putting a redirect in for "Gendarmería Nacional Argentina" to point here in case anyone should search for it. That is the real name of the agency, not just a translation.

In many places, using the actual spanish name for the ranks and unit structure makes sense, especially if there is no direct translation to the english language. If it were me, I would have put the name of the sub-officer ranks, and officer ranks in the original language first, and on the right hand colummn, the best translation of the title into English.

I feel the same for the Unit Structure as well. I feel that this is an English description of an Argentinian Agency, and not just a translation of a spanish article into an English article.

In several places, "gendarmerie" is in lower case, and accoding to WP:MOS, it ought to be capitalized. This may be debatable (and a room for compromise) when used alone. But in the context it is used, it is a short version of "Argentine National Gendarmerie" which as an institution, should be in capital letters. SO, properly, when using the word to describe the institution, it should be capitalized. When used to describe some gendarmerie in general (not this one) it should be in lower case.

It appears that user:mesoso made the last edit, and so I wonder if it would be alright if user:Necrothesp could make a gentle edit, based on this conversation, to his satisfaction, and we can spend a day, or two, looking at it to see how it feels, how it affects the quality of the article, and such, and then discuss what changes are desirable from that point. Even under the worst situation, should it be a bad edit (and of course, I'm not suggesting that would happen,) it would not be the end of the world for it to be that way for a few days. The article, as interesting as it is, is probaly not the most high profile, or critical article on Wikipedia. We have days, weeks, months to work on it without it impacting anyone.

So, I am asking that user:Necrothesp make a preliminary edit so that we can see what changes (given the desire to reach group consensus and compromise, and keep good quality) would appear like. I am also asking that no editor change that for at least a couple of days while we discuss the edit here on the talk page.

Thanks, 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay this all seems very reasonable. Thankyou for your contribution, Atomaton.

If Necrothesp is not satisfied by my explanations as for the version as it currently stands, I except some preliminary edits with a view to eventually finding a consensus.

I'm not sure about "commander" because the word commandant is usually used for the spanish rank of commandante, and is used in Ireland. I know that commander is more common as it is used in the Royal and United States Navies, but i am trying to avoid forcing the GNA names into the system of English-speaking militaries, since i see no need to do so. However i certainly accept that several translations are possible, and commander is not unreasonable, although as a rank I would translate this into spanish as comendedor. If necessary perhaps we could list more than one translation, this is not uncommon.

On this note, I am worried that "there is no direct translation to the english language" is being used to in fact mean the rank/unit is not used in the commonwealth/US; i.e. it is an ethnocentric rejection of foreign use of terms, rather than reflecting a true lack of translation. I have tried to accurately reflect the foreign terms as closely as possible in translation, rather than forcing in a UK or US equivalent. At the same time i accept the difficulties always inherent in translation.

Gendarmería Nacional Argentina is now redirected here.

Incidentally, I entirely reject the relevance of the River Plate / Rio de la Plata case, which is a discussion of a place name, and therefore an completely distinct discussion. Mesoso 18:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article as Atom suggests. Hopefully this will meet with everyone's approval and we can move on. I agree that Comandante should be rendered as "Commandant", since this is a word completely recognised in English, and which does actually tend to be associated in the English-speaking world with South American policemen. -- Necrothesp 13:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First Edit

I'm reviewing the latest edit. I'll reserve comments until later. I do note the typo "fufils". No big deal.

If we could leave this version for a day or two, and then other people could comment, and then we can see what changes may be desirable? Atom 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Here is my review of the latest edit. I read the article, slept on it, and am reading it again. These are only my opinions, and not anything more.

1) Considering the title again.

The following all have the main article indexed under the agencies name (spanish), and the title of the article is the same, and the lead gives the article title, and then a translation of that in english.

• Policía de la Provincia de Santa Fe lead is agency name (spanish) with english translation.
• Inteligencia de la Policía Bonaerense lead is agency name (spanish) with english translation.
• Guardia Urbana de Buenos Aires lead is agency name (spanish) with english translation.
• Policía de la Provincia de Santa Fe lead is agency name (spanish) with english translation.
• Argentine Naval Prefecture lead is agency name (spanish) with english translation.
• Sistema de Seguridad Interior lead is agency name (spanish) with english translation.
• Grupo Alacrán
• Grupo Albatros
• Brigada Especial Operativa Halcón
• Grupo Especial de Operaciones Federales (Argentina)
• Compañía de Tropas de Operaciones Especiales
• Policía Federal Argentina
• Cuerpo Guardia de Infantería
• Grupo Especial Uno
• Inteligencia de la Policía Federal Argentina
• Sistema de Inteligencia Nacional
• Secretaría de Inteligencia
• Escuela Nacional de Inteligencia
• Dirección de Observaciones Judiciales
• Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia Criminal
• Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia Estratégica Militar
• Servicio Federal de Lucha contra el Narcotráfico
• Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera
• Central de Reunión de Inteligencia Militar
• Jefatura de Inteligencia del Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas
• Servicio de Inteligencia Naval (Argentina)
• Servicio de Inteligencia de la Fuerza Aérea (Argentina)
• Servicio de Inteligencia del Ejército (Argentina)
• Batallón de Inteligencia 601
• Central Nacional de Inteligencia
• Coordinación de Informaciones de Estado
• División de Informaciones
• Secretaría de Informaciones de Estado

The following has the lead in english, followed by the agency name (in spanish) afterward:

• Buenos Aires Provincial Police
• Special Operations Group (Argentina)
• Rapid Deployment Force (Argentina)

2) I like the use of Gendarmerie, capitalizes when refering to the agency, it looks good.

3) I like the rank structure, with the actual rank anmes first, and translation (or approximate translation) later.

4) The website link doesn't look very useful. No info, and you can't go anywhere from there.

5) "fulfil" and "fulfill" are both correct spelling. It is my impression that "fulfill" is predominant in the UK and in the U.S., but that isn't important. I was more focused on consistent usage, as the word is used again "fulfilled" in another paragraph (history).

I will give it a bit more thought. I'd like to get feedback from others, before others make changes to this edit, if we could.

Atom 16:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re fulfil/fulfill. I'm in the UK and the latter usage looks very odd to me. The OED gives "fulfil" as the main usage (although I now notice that it does appear to give "fulfill" as an alternative). The past tense would be "fulfilled" however the root was spelt. The website appears to have been hijacked - the link no longer points to the official website, although it did last time I accessed it. -- Necrothesp 17:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Mesoso may be taking a wiki break. No activity since the 13th. Let's give him a until the 24th to respond before we proceed. Atom 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's move forward and see how it goes. Necrothesp, what do you think? Any more changes after refelcting? What do you think about standardization of all of the argentine articles with article names, headers, etc that are more uniform? Atom 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Escudo Gendarmeria Nacional Argentina.jpg

Image:Escudo Gendarmeria Nacional Argentina.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and citations (still) needed

Dear editor(s), there is no mention of sources used to create this article, even less inline citations. This has been tagged in the article since April'08 (i.e.: nearly 6 years). Can anyone (especially the main editors) please help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)