Talk:Dictator novel

Tintin

A furious Alcazar addresses his drunken troops in Tintin and the Picaros

Do you want to extend the dictator novel to graphic novels like Tintin? Several of the stories feature a Latin American dictator in the fictional Latin American country of San Theodoros. The two pertinent characters are General Tapioca and General Alcazar. Obviously, these are a satire / parody of the Latin American dictator. If you don't, why not? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be something that could be incorporated into the legacy maybe? Not sure when that was written.--Abarratt (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

While it's true they parody Latin American dictators, as French works wouldn't they lie outside the genre? My feeling is that they're only marginally relevant and would detract from the focus - obviously the article can't cover every mention of a L-A dictator. EyeSerene^talk 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps for FA! I was checking to see if this could be sourced...and it can. Tintin has scholarly fans :-) Note they are Belgian works. The Belgians are very proud of old Tintin. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Belgian? Oops! EyeSerene^talk 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And a fascist, btw. A friend of mine is working on precisely this, btw: Hergé's representation of Latin America. I'm not sure it would fit here, mostly because dictatorship is hardly the focus of any of the Tintin books, but it is interesting stuff. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean his depictions of black people in particular? I've heard comments about that in the halls of academia but I've never verified it by myself. The last time I watched TinTin I was to small to now what racism was.Acer (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, he was a racist (see Tintin in the Congo) but also a paid-up member of a group that collaborated with the Nazis during WWII. Still, and interesting guy all around. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you mention it, I remember reading something on that. I think I've still got most of the books tucked away somewhere - loved them when I was a kid. I shudder to think of some of the authors I grew up on! (Enid Blyton was another...) EyeSerene^talk 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh oh. Hergé's early work was for Le XXe Siècle - a rightist Catholic paper.. However, to keep this NPOV, Hergé is not seen as either a rascist or fascist - at least no more than P. G. Wodehouse - except in some circles :-) His later graphic novels after the war had a strong international perspective and were quite friendly to aboriginals. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA

Congratulations! This has been my favourite MMM article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! So glad to be able to relax at least for one day! Many thanks to everyone! :D--Abarratt (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "Patria"

The article translates "los padres de la patria" as "The fathers of the fatherland". Wouldn't better words to define "patria" be either "Homeland" or just "Country"? If anything since "patria" is feminine, wouldn't at least a better translation be "motherland" since it also very common expression in spanish "la madre patria"? Wikihonduras (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an easy phrase (or word) to translate. I'm borderline happy with "fathers of the fatherland," in that it retains the repetition in the original Spanish; sadly, it makes it rather too explicit. "Fathers of the motherland" just sounds odd, though in other situations I might be happy to translate "patria" as "motherland." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

GA request

I saw this article in the GA request cat, had a look, and found significant deterioration over the years from the version that warranted GA. I have reverted to the last version edited by Jbmurray (talk · contribs), January 2010. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mhazard9/Archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sandy:

Might you be specific and give examples of where my editorial participation in JB Murray's Dictator Novel article resulted in "significant deterioration"? Gosh, the emphases on the novelists, rather than the novels, betrays your boosterism of the fellow. Again, be specific and give examples, lest your sockpuppet non sequitur oblige me to dismiss your unfounded criticism as the opinions of an editor with more attitude than ability. In an editorial endeavour, such as the Dictator Novel article by JB Murray, facts help your case.

Let me know.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the changes made prior to Sandy's revert, but looking at the changes you've made today I see some problems. For example:

• "As established by Sarmiento's early writing" has been changed to "As established by Sarmiento"; this changes the meaning without any additional sourcing.
• "the dictator is a composite figure assembled from various historical dictators" has been changed to " the dictator is a composite man assembled from historical dictators"; "figure" is better than man, since it less concrete; "various" is a helpful adjective here and I think should have been left in.
• "Novels that contain political themes, but do not centre on the rule of a particular dictator or authoritarian figure, are not classified as true dictator novels" has been changed to "Latin American novels that explore political themes, but that do not centre upon the rule of a particular dictator, are informally classified as “not quite dictator novels”." The addition of "Latin American" seems unnecessary but fairly harmless. I don't see the value of changing "contain" to "explore"; I think the former is marginally preferable, though it's a fine point. The removal of "authoritarian figure" seems quite wrong; and "not quite dictator novels" is OK if it's a direct quote from the Williams source cited -- I suspect that that's not the case, so I would prefer to see this changed back.

Changing regime to régime, and the linking that's been done, are fine, of course, but the prose changes I've looked are not improvements. I suggest a revert to the version prior to your edits today, and a redo of the formatting changes, and then a talk page discussion for any further changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mike:

I disagree, the concrete-language specificity of my editorial participation in the Dictator Novel article, keeps the SUBJECT foremost in the reader's reading of the text, and corrects the CONTRADICTION between the introduction and the Legacy section. Your usage of the weasel word "seems" confirms my point, because something either is or is not, thus, "seems" is the opinion of someone who has not read the books under discussion, i.e. a bluff. I have read some of them, in the original Spanish and the English translations. "Various" is redundant to describing the plural "dictators" (Honestly, do you really not see it?), perhaps these examples: COLD ICE, HOT FIRE, WET WATER, might assist you to choose to see the point and purpose of the editorial contributions and thematic corrections. Moreover, CONCRETENESS is the purpose of the article, because the purpose of an encyclopedic article is to answer the questions of WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? WHY? and HOW? of a subject; if not, then we, here, are running in place creating a mere vanity-publishing exercise.

Reverting the entire editorial effort based upon your opinion of "I don't see it" is contrary to the collective spirit of Wikipedia; so, let us work out each change, because your suggested global reversion also would eliminate the British spellings of which you approved . . . again, you have contradicted yourself. Do you now see how "seems" smacks of "I prefer my pal's version", which is a form of Wikipedia: I just don't like it, because you continually contradict yourself with "I don't see it", which I think is a choice, given that everything I contributed is WRITTEN and thus visible. The subject of the article Dictator Novel is the novel, not the opinions of critics, hence why I changed the order of importance, away from personality and towards the literary subject.

Please show HOW my edits worsened the article. The wholesale reversion is a cop-out; please address the changes as suggested by the Wikipedia Guidelines, one at a time, because, what you propose is that I ask permission of the Page Owner(s), which the Wiki guidelines do not require of any editor. The novels present, i.e. EXPLORE, themes, they do not merely contain them; they are not boxes. Forgive me if I insult you, but: Have you read any of these novels? The editorial changes I effected are based upon knowledge of the books, not just the opinions of critics who read the books. To correct a tautology, as in the Mirabal sisters portion, is logical, not a matter of because I say so!

All of these obvious things I note to you, Mike, because your contradictory initial statement of fact: I have not reviewed the changes made prior to Sandy's revert. . . . Well then, upon what factual base are you herein demanding a total reversion of my work, if you have not bothered to do the homework, to do the reading? Please, no credentialism! Are we, you and I, to await permission from a Page Owner? Your opinions, I don't see it. . . . do not follow through . . . except as Wikipedia: I just don't like it!

Respect the editorial boundaries, and let us, you, Mike, and I, Mhazard9, work out each contribution, surely, they cannot all be wrong . . . ¿o sí?

Let me know.

Yours, Mhazard9 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't review the revert Sandy made because there was no need; you had edited since then without a wholesale revert (or so it appears) so it was only necessary to review edits since that point. I didn't express an opinion on those edits either, only on the edits I reverted.

I'm not the page owner; nor have I reverted you -- I'm discussing the issue on the talk page, looking for consensus. I'd like to hear other editors' opinions of the recent changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mike:

Thank you.

Yours,

Mhazard9 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mike that recent changes (including some by an IP address or two a little while ago) have generally degraded this article, without even adding much if anything in the way of new material or sources.

But let me just mention a particular pet peeve regarding edits that apparently change the readings of particular sources. Compare the following:

Novels that contain political themes, but do not centre on the rule of a particular dictator or authoritarian figure, are not classified as true dictator novels (Williams 2003, p. 167).

Latin American novels that explore political themes, but that do not centre upon the rule of a particular dictator, are informally classified as “not quite dictator novels” (Williams 2003, p. 167).

Now, this is quite a change: from a classification to an "informal" classification; and a quotation has been added. Yet both sentences rely apparently on exactly the same source.

What I want to know is whether that source has been checked before this change was made. I bet it wasn't. Indeed, when I look at the book in question I don't at any point see the phrase "not quite dictator novels."

In short, as well as introducing infelicities and possible errors, these recent changes now effectively include an invented quotation misattributed to a reputable source. In no way is that an improvement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear JB:

Whilst you quibble, do not forget to attend to the contradictions. A GA-pretending article that is all text should not have contradictions. The article is "degraded" if one seeks facts, not if one seeks freshman-level journalism about personalities. Please recall, the article is about novels, not the writers. Still, your contradictions stand, and I shall limit my participation to the article, not personalities; you have told too much about. . . .

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me know

Let's wait another couple of days to see if other editors comment. I would still prefer to revert to this revision and then work forward with any useful changes, but we should see if there are other comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)