Talk:Tupamaros

I think that the name of this article should be changed to it's full and official name "Tupamaros National Liberation Movement".--Jersey Devil 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems their official name was "Movimiento de Liberación Nacional - Tupamaros." So how about we change it to "National Liberation Movement — Tupamaros"? Does Wikipedia allow dashes in article titles? Mona-Lynn 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see the relevant policy at the following internal link: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)--Jersey Devil 22:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"After democracy was restored to Uruguay in 1985" is a very vague and politically loaded phrase that implies that majority voting = democracy. Many would dispute that claim based on the many factors that go into majority voting, such as financial factors. It should be changed to say something more clear, such as "After the military dictatorship was overthrown and replaced with an elected president", if that's what is meant. --lotu5 14:09, 24 Jan 2006 (UTC)

WP:Be bold... and precise. Maybe "transition to democracy" is better (see Spanish transition to democracy)? Eitherwise, you can add "liberal" to democracy: liberal democracy is a more precise term (which, I agree with you, is not "democracy", which means a lot of different things depending on your POV). Or representative democracy? In history of Uruguay, they used the term "restauration of civilian rule" and transition to democracy. I think that it should be stressed that the shift to democracy is always progressive after a dictatorship (especially in South Cone countries in the 1980s-90s-2000s). One could argue - and not dumb people have done so - that democracy is in any case a never-ending process, which may suffer from violent backlashes... Tazmaniacs

Some of the famous Tupamaros: Julio Marenales, founder along with Raul Sendic and Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro.

Martin Hausen 00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Regarding the section detailing actions carried out by the Tupamaros, I think it contains items that do not fall under the category of "attacks" (eg the intentional homicide of a civilian who finds a hiding place, however deplorable, does not qualify as an "attack" imo). I propose either renaming this section or moving that information elsewhere. Also, since this section is likely to spur debate and controversy, it's particulary important that citations be provided. For example, the death of a civilian was attributed to the Tupamaros (Hilaria Ibarra). A little research suffices to show that, although injured, this woman survived. Two people died in the bombing of that bowling alley, both of them Tupamaros (and sources sympathetic to the tupamaros claim they died because they went back in when they realized civilians were still inside). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhausen77 (talk • contribs)

The qualifying word "terrorist" to describe the tupamaros is inappropriate, they do not meet the criteria defined in the article about terrorism to qualify as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.103.55 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

POV: article reads as a propaganda piece

The article pushes an agenda depicting the Tupamaros as Robin Hood type freedom fighters. It bends over backwards to justify their notable attacks and vilifies the victims of their kidnappings/assassinations. For example the kidnapping of a wealthy banker makes him out to be a monster and exaggerates how well he was treated by his kidnappers. It states the incredible story that he murdered a paperboy just for selling a newspaper attacking him. Very inflammatory, and it is totally unsubstantiated. No citation given. Then it makes the dubious claim that when the banker was freed he was "fatter". Note that it doesn't say gained weight, but that it depicts him as fat and he got fatter during the abduction. He gained weight noticeably in just 4 days? Then it says that the poor people were quoted as joking, "Tupamaros! Kidnap me!" because the kidnap victims are fed so well. Again there is no citation given. All utterly dubious and clearly propaganda. The whole article reads like that. Walterego (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Ulysses Pereira Reverbel [es] and of the British ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, a U.S. FBI agent that was also working for the CIA (via the Agency for International Development's Office of Public Safety), who the Tupamaros learned was advising the Uruguayan police in torture and other techniques to build up a terror regime and the soon following military dictatorship.

2001:16B8:F55:D900:41D9:8AE9:43F4:A77E (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

I edited this article for reference formatting only - I have no view on the content. I edited a book reference into a more standard form; this brought up a warning on saving that publisher CreateSpace is considered unreliable self-publishing. I saved it anyway, but an editor who knows the subject may wish to look into this. The reference:

Brum, Pablo (2014). The Robin Hood Guerrillas: The Epic Journey of Uruguay's Tupamaros. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace. pp. 38–44. ISBN 978-1-4973-0872-5. OCLC 885585177.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)