Talk:History of Argentina/Archive 1

Perón, Pre-history

You could easily come away from this article as it stands seeing Perón as a leftist, when in fact he had fascist tendencies. Also, there is nothing at all about Domingo Sarmiento; little on the civil wars of the 19th century; no explanation of the history of the separation of Uruguay from Argentina; and the recent chaotic history is barely touched upon. This could use a lot of work. -- Jmabel 07:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not only that, but it opens with "This is the history of Argentina" and promptly starts the history with "Europeans arrived...." Didn't anything happen there before Europeans arrived? Moriori 07:41, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

In a precise formal sense, history means recorded history, i.e. recorded in some durable lasting form such as writing or inscriptions - oral tradition and the like are too mutable to qualify. This means that, tautologically, the events before the Europeans arrived weren't history but prehistory. PML.

Perhaps. The German-language article starts with a mention of the Incas. I plan to mine that article next, but I'm juggling a lot of projects. -- Jmabel 18:14, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. The German-language content is now all translated and integrated into the English-language article. -- Jmabel 07:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Back to my Perón question: I've been researching some Argentine-related topics (mostly because I started working on Jorge Luis Borges and found a lot of problems not only in that article as it stood but everywhere on its periphery), but I'm not particularly strong on Argentina: I'm sure any educated Argentinian would know more than I. (I'm a norteamericano; I come to knowledge of Argentina through reading Borges. I'd like to learn more, but there are a lot of things in this world I'd like to know.) I could try writing about Perón, but as they say, write about what you know, and Perón isn't what I really know. I could research but, to be honest, other topics interest me more. -- Jmabel 18:14, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Political Parties

I suspect that the names of political parties need to be "normalized". Some of these are now my attempted English translations of German translations of Spanish-language names. I have to guess that I have not gotten this entirely right. -- Jmabel 07:01, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nazi haven

Why did so many Nazis seek refuge in Argentina at the end of World War II? Kent Wang 06:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think nazis particularly seeked refuge in argentina but that argentina was (and in some extent, still is) a country really open for immigration. For instance it's the 3rd country with most jewish population after israel and usa, so I doubt is a matter of ideology. Events like The Battle of the River Plate, ended up engrossing the settlements that already existed, previous to nazism, in south and center of argentina, uruguay and the south of brazil. Also, hiring cheap former luftwaffe technicians for the country's air force program in the late 40s greatly helped to such a notion. Of course, having a president who wasn't anti-nationalist made the path more clear. SpiceMan 01:30, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why the 1930's crisis?

Why didn't Argentine recover after the 1929 crack? Was the autarchy a bad choice? Is there a consensus?

recent anon edits detrimental?

The anon edits by 134.105.248.20 on 10 Sept look mostly detrimental to me, but I don't know the subject matter well enough to say whether some of this may actually be correction, and he/she left no comments. Will someone clueful please have a look, sort this out, and leave a note here indicating at least that it's been looked at? Thanks. -- Jmabel 19:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Buenos Aires status as a colonial port

• All the shipments were bound to Spain; it was very frustrating for the incipient class of businessmen and for the British Empire. It is so relevant that it prompted the British invasions of 1806 and 1807 and helped the independence cause. If there are no objections, I'll include this back to the article in a few days from now.
• I would like to see some support to the theory of Potosí ore being shipped thru Buenos Aires.

Ejrrjs 22:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • it wasn't that direct of a revenue. When creating the virreinato del rio de la plata, the spanish crown "artificially" bound the Alto Pero with the Rio de la plata estuary administration, when it was historically and geographically way more linked to Lima. It was in cash, not ore that it came to Buenos Aires. Since the viceroyalty creation until around 1805, about 60% of the income that the Royal Cash of Buenos Aires had, was sent from the intendency of El Potosí. Although, communications problems and the Potosí silver mine inevitable depletion was reflected: money was less than 10% at end while at first it reached numbers over 80%. This money was used to create the new viceroyalty administration and start the region defense (which ultimately proved deficient in 1806 as it was of no resistance to the small british attempt of invasion). I wrote something about it in Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, but it could be more detailed. I also added that as a See Also in the colonial era. -- SpiceMan 00:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, there is a reference to the source of revenue here: El Virreinato del Río de la Plata entre 1791 y 1805, part of Historia General de las RR.EE. de la República Argentina by Carlos Escudé & Andrés Cisneros (in Spanish), namely, funds from Alto Perú accounted for 78.86% of the fiscal expenses of the region between 1791 and 1800, but that source of revenue rapidly declined.
  • --Ejrrjs 22:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Is Buenos Aires port really a natural one? Ejrrjs 11:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What makes it a "natural port"? I don't know what makes it to qualify as one, but I'd say is pretty natural. It has a 2 shores (buenos aires one the west and montevideo on the east), and lots of water. Spaniards arrived and just got off the ships in a breeze (if you don't take indian attacks in account haha). Pics with Buenos Aires + some ship: here. On the other hand, constructions always tended to advance over the water, and the shore is way on previously in-water space. In fact the shore where it's thought that it's likely to be the place where Pedro de Mendoza arrived, entablished and founded the city is now a public park (Parque Lezama). So taking in account that, you could say is an "artificial" one? But I doubt anyone would assert that. SpiceMan 23:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has lot of water, and lot of mud as well :-) BTW, I'm an Argentinian, was born in BsAs and lived many years there. I guess it will depend on the draft of the vessels...as per today, there are specific channels leading to B.A. port, and these need permanent dredging. I also recall (but are unable to cite right now) stories of colonial times where the ships were anchored far away from the shore, and goods (and passenger) had to be unloaded by boat. I always thought that let's say Ensenada was much more appropriate as a port. Do you think that BsAs has any specific "technical" advantages? Ejrrjs 23:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Harbor vs port: it seems to be a distinction between these term that are both translated in Spanish as puerto. Please see the definition of a natural harbor to see if it fits BsAs port. Ejrrjs 09:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changes to Growth of a nation state

1. Rename the section as Birth of a nation state, and this, only after Caseros (or Pavón, I might say).
   • OK, but do be aware of the accidental resonance of Birth of a Nation. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
2. There was no declaration of independence in 1810. The "patriotas" fought the Spanish under the pretense of defending Ferdinand VII's interests (the so-called by historians Fedinand VII's mask).
3. Simon Bolivar bear little direct impact to Argentina independence, other than the break-up of Bolivia; surely he and Sucre terminated the Spanish threat in South America, but he was never directly involved in Argentina's fights.
4. Mazorquero is derogatory. They preferred to be called "the Holy Federation". (unsigned, but it's User:Ejrrjs)
   • Any reason you didn't put "the Holy Federation" into the article? And shouldn't we keep mazorquero but indicate that it is a derogatory label? It's in the literature enough that it should be explained, not removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

• • You're right, I'll fix it Ejrrjs 20:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) (sorry I forgot to sign the previous comment)

Non-citation

"Several pundits have pointed out that Kirchner appears to be part of a new group…". "Several pundits have pointed out …" is hardly a citation, would someone please cite this. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:38, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

United Provinces

any idea about United Provinces of South America or UP of Rio de la Plata? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Could you be more specific than "any idea"? What do you want to know/what do you want added to the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears at the Reglamento Provisorio from the Tucuman Congress (1817) instead of the customary UP of the Rio de la Plata. Hubris, I think. Ejrrjs | What? 01:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Incoherence

I removed the sentence "From about 1900, Argentine nationalism began to identify Argentina with Europe and the United States of America rather than with the rest of Latin America." If anything the opposite is true. Lausanne

The section of the article that talks about Perón and until the Dirty War is a mess. The idea of having an article on the Revolución Libertadora is to have the fine details there, and leave only a summary here. Let's try to keep the page in chronological order, discuss the fine points, and cite sources. Whoever inserted the section on the Revolución Libertadora, please fix the article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 05:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the section headings myself, but part of the content still needs to be moved to the RL article, and the rest probably deserves another article too. Maybe we could divide the history of Argentina in decade-long periods. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"epuration"

"criticizing the epuration in the army": "epuration" doesn't exist in English (and, as far as I know, epuración is pretty obscure and frenchified Spanish). I'm assuming the intent is equivalent to the French épuration. That can mean either "purification" or "purge". I suspect that latter is meant (in the sense of "many people losing their positions"). So "epuration in" would become "purge of", if I'm right. Can someone confirm? And if so, can someone clarify, was it a purge of the officer corps, or the lower ranks as well? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, what do "From Perón's tribune" and "assures the interim" mean, I don't even have a guess. -- Jmabel | Talk

The word was depuración, which is an euphemism for "purge" in this case. For example, "Immediately after taking office, President Kirchner started a depuración of the Armed Forces", which for some means "removed people formerly involved in the Dirty War" and for others "removed people who disagreed with his ideology". I'm not sure exactly about Perón's case, so maybe a neutral term should be employed. "Tribune" is a technical architectural term in English; tribuna in Spanish has several meanings but in this case it means a kind of balcony, I think (though the balcony of the Casa Rosada has always been el balcón). "Assure the interim" I don't know. Maybe it should've been "assume". Asume en el interín would mean "takes charge in the meantime" (not necessarily a legal/official ad interim rule). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

fixed some bits. Otherwise, Argentina was not only dependent on oil; in a general sense, its economy was dependent from the exterior. Kaliz 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cámpora

I believe this anonymous edit is dead wrong. I have reversed it. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perón (2)

(continued from old discussion: Talk:History of Argentina#Perón, Pre-history)

Calling Peron a fascist is rather simplistic. Even while he copied many fascist propaganda techniques, it was during his government when the urban working class got the bigger relative incomes in the whole Argentinian history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.250.64.164 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 June 2006.

"Fascist" is not intended as an insult, so there's no need to place a positive statement in opposition to it ("he may've been a fascist but workers were better paid"). Some things in Perón's rule are within the scope of the definition of fascism, while others are not. Let us be neutral and stick to the facts, please. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes

It`s "León Suarez", not "Leon Suarez". Please correct. Damifb

Diaguites may not exist

Hi, I went to Jujuy the last spring and I have met an anthropologist from the UBA that it was supporting the idea that Diaguites not exist at all, they were just a made-up of the nineteenth-century historians. There were little tribes that created the buildings in the area, until there were conquered. I'm looking for sources in the Internet for support this claim, the guy was very convinced of this BorisDelMas 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar

In the sidebar at the top of the article spelling should be changed from "Pre-Colombian" to "Pre-Columbian". But I don't know how to do this.Godingo 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

done changes at {{History of Argentina}} --Mariano(t/c) 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Independence from Spain

Does anyone happen to know when Spain accepted Argentine independence? I'm not sure where to begin looking. Thanks. (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

1859 You should know where to ask by now ;-) Justin talk 10:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta, it's for the sandbox thing on my profile page mentioned elsewhere :) (Pez Dispens3r (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)).

Conflict with the agricultural sector

I had removed all the paragraph which told about the lockout, because it was totally not neutral. If someone can complete this section, I will be grateful. --201.255.184.133 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph restored, though I agree it could do with some rework. See WP:SOFIXIT, don't remove content just because you disagree with it. Justin talk 09:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph in a neutral point of view. The references can be found in the corresponding article. But I think it needs a grammatical style revision. Can somebody help? --201.255.191.247 (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording Issues

As i was reading this article, i came across the line "Argentina was officially neutral during most of World War II although the public remained divided." The line doesn't make sense but i'm not sure how to fix it while also keeping in line with fact. Would it make sense to simply replace 'although' with 'as'?

Real Birth Date of what we know as ARGENTINA ?

please could somebody detail, which was the date, whereas the country officially was named and recognized Argentina? This seems not very clear in the article, but I assume it must have been arround 1825 and 1835 ? Thanks--194.203.215.254 (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The name Argentina was finally adopted in 1836 from memory. But prior to that it had a variety of names including the United Provinces of the River Plate and the United Provinces of South America. What we now know as Argentina would probably date from as late as 1885 when Patagonia was incorporated into Argentina through the Conquest of the Desert. Justin talk 14:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosas

The sentence "The dominant figure of this period was the federalist Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is generally considered a dictator" is not a neutral one. The conception of Rosas as a dictator is not universal: it was so in the early times of argentine historiography, written by people like Mitre and Sarmiento. Things started to be questiones during the half of the XX century, with the rise the revisionist school, with historians like Pepe Rosa that provided a completely opposing view of him. Modern historians, like Felipe Pigna or Pacho O'Donnel, source themselves with both schools and don't consider Rosas a dictator nor an epic greek heroe. I suggest to reformulate the sentence like this: "The dominant figure of this period was the federalist Juan Manuel de Rosas, who is portrayed under diferents angles by the diverse historiographic flows in Argentina: the canonic history usually considers him a dictator, while revisionism support him on the grounds of his defense of national soveregnity." MBelgrano (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have already explained on your talk page, NPOV requires us to present the mainstream historical opinion. It does not require us to represent ALL views and fringe material does not have to be presented with undue prominence. Your edit proposal promotes fringe revisionist material to the same level as the mainstream opinion. Also tags exist for a reason, not to enable you to disrupt the article to make a point. Please do not do that again. Also as I have pointed out to you, the sources you claim to back up this edit includes a tabloid newspaper that would not be considered a reliable source for historic information. Justin talk 07:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've searched the bibliography I have at home, Historia de los Argentinos, Vol 2, Cap 1 (Carlos Floria and Carlos García Belsunce) and Breve historia de los Argentinos (Félix Luna). Interestingly enough, I couldn't find the "dictator" part. You see, in my oppinion the biggest problem with it are the similarities between roasas and perón. There is a lot of rosist-peronist material on the internet (like this). Obviously, if you call Rosas a "dictator", it is analogous to the "el tirano prófugo" sentence in La Razón newspaper. Félix Luna solves this problem with two magnificent parafraphs:

"No abundaremos en el tema, porque la polémica sobre Rosas es tan repetitiva, que para mí ha dejado de tener interés. Ocurre que cuando se discute la cuestión, se está discutiendo el sentido de valores que siguen siendo importantes en la vida colectiva y hasta individual de los argentinos de hoy, como la libertad o la soberanía nacional"

"Dado que a Rosas se lo critica o se lo elogia por facetas tan distintas de su personalidad, ya no caben discusiones sobre él desde el punto de vista historiográfico. Es muy difícil que se encuentre algún documento que eche luz sobre aspectos ignorados de Rosas como persona o como gobernante; es decir, el material crítico con el que trabaja el historiador está prácticamente agotado. Existe sí una polémica en base a estos valores que aún hoy conmueve a la gente, y es entorno a aquélla que giran las discusiones sobre Rosas. Al que valora la libertad como una categoría fundamental de la vida colectiva, nunca le va a gustar Rosas; el que cree en la soberanía como elemento articulador de la comunidad nacional, hablará bien de él. Y así seguirán durante años y años."

(Félix Luna, Breve Historia de los Argentinos, desde la primera fundación de Buenos Aires hasta la asunción de Néstor Kirchner, Pags 82-83. 43ª edición, ed. Planeta, Buenos Aires 2006, ISBN 950-49-1487-X)

So basically the alleged "dictatorship" and such (and also de "restaurador de la leyes y el ordern") is a criticism from politics; not from history. Because of this I propose to remove the "dicatator" sentence, y preocuparnos por otras cosas. Argentino (talk/cont.) 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for double posting -what we could add is something about contemporary criticism and oppinions. Take something about Echeverría and the federal party, "tirano" vs. "restaurador", and keep it as a long and distant debate. Argentino (talk/cont.) 11:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, nor does it give undue prominence to fringe material or historical revisionism. As I've previously pointed out the article reflects mainstream historical opinion and the fact that a few Argentine historians wish to rewrite history to suit a current political agenda is not mainstream. Nor does Wikipedia exist to provide a platform for debate or original research. There is nothing wrong with the current article and I would resist the changes proposed as seeking to advance a revisionist agenda that doesn't reflect mainstream opinion. Justin talk 11:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, those who im citing are two of the most widespread historians in Argentina. If they ommit the debate and let the reader decide, we should do the same. According to WP:ASF "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". I've provided textual references from very important historians. We should either put both oppinions or none. Argentino (talk/cont.) 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you don't dispute my contention that mainstream historical opinion regards Rosas as a dictator, so we shall take that as read. Describing him as such is asserting a verified fact not a particular opinion, particularly my own as you appear to be inferring. In fact I have no opinion on how he is described other than it should follow guidelines, I have no particular agenda here.

Instead, you have provided opinions, from two historians you assert to be important and claim we should adopt their style and methods. Thus far your contention appears to be asserting that we either include a minority historical perspective or expunge from the narrative the mainstream historical opinion. Sorry but no, that isn't how wikipedia works. To overturn the current consensus would actually put the onus on you to providing a compelling argument to include minority/fringe material; which you have not done.

Neither have your provided anything to rebut the current policy based argument for the status quo. The current article stems from mainstream historical opinion, not Argentina's internal politics. Justin talk 13:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's right, Wikipedia does not "right great wrongs", but that's not the case here. We, wikipedian users, are not stating that history as told by Mitre or Sarmiento is "wrong": many historians have already done that, and we simply describe the existence of the dispute. Historical revisionism and post-revisionism includes a great number of respected historians, in fact I don't have the numbers but I'm sure that between both (the revisionists that consider Rosas a heroe, and the post-revisionists who don't consider him as either a heroe or a dictator) they outnumber the ones who would take a full stance into calling him a dictator.

Neutral point of view does tell not to give undue weight to minority viewpoints or fringe theories, but that section only applies when the viewpoints considered are such ones. WP:UNDUE is not a safeguard to evade neutral point of view by sticking to a certain point of view and labeling it as "mainstream", and disregarding the others as "fringe theories". We won't have always a scenario where there's a single "mainstream" view of things and everything else belonging to "the conspiracy website or the book by a crank". Sometimes there are disputes at a scholar level, and then the dispute is handled as told by the begining parts of the policy.

Pepe Rosa, Scalabrini Ortiz, Felipe Pigna, Felix Luna, Pacho O'Donnell (just to mention the first ones who come to my mind) are not "cranks", nor conspiracy theorists, and their books are well respected. In fact, the books by Mitre are antique "collection items" wich are hard to find (I have been more than a year at it), but if you enter to any bookstore (yes, any big and respectable bookstore) the ones by Pigna, Luna or O'Donnell and other post-revisionist historians are the easiest ones to find, available everywhere. If there's a "mainstream" view of the history of Argentina (today, not 2 centuries ago), they are closer to be so than Mitre.

For the ones who are newcomers to this whole topic and see it hard to set apart if I'm telling the right things or just an elaborated deception to pass some fringe theory or "right some wrongs", I will give as well some web sites. Historians have already been named and pointed, I can easily tell the books refered but it may be hard by non-argentine users to check them. Those links are not replacements for that: they serve to check the fact that the dispute between both interpretations of history does exist at a scholar level. this and this site describe it, and they are not "conspiracy websites", they are supported by the minister of education of Argentina itself. this other one belongs to Clarín, wichis not a "tabloid" as said on my talk page but the highest newspaper of Argentina. here he do have an example of a recent book. Although the content of the book itself is not available (perhaps it is somewhere, but that would be a copyright violation), the briefly explanatory text on the back of it is provided and talk by itself: "En este libro Pacho O’Donnell se aleja de las reprobaciones sin matices de la versión oficial y también de las acaloradas reivindicaciones del revisionismo que pretendió hacer del Restaurador un héroe sin tacha."

And yes, revisionism was in fact influenced by the political viewpoints of their own time, but that doesn't give them any less credibility. Mitre and Sarmiento did the same thing as well, talking under a good or bad light about old events that were somewhat analogous to events they were involved into, or policies they were supporting or implementing themselves. And, among modern historians, Felipe Pigna is a clear example of the same, usually drawing explicit comparisons between old events and modern ones, extrapolating into the old ones the opinions about the modern ones. And if we keep at it, every historiographic style of any specialized history, when analyzed by any given author as a topic in itself (rather than the events it talk about), we will find some degree of influence of the context where such interpretation was designed.

But to keep it short and to the point: Revisionism is a legitimate viewpoint of history of Argentina, either by direct supporters or by historians that, even if not supporting it completely, do take them in consideration as a recognized interpretation and not as a "the conspiracy website or the book by a crank". Among them we can find the highest number of modern historians, and most reliable sources do portrait the dispute itself as a legitimate dispute MBelgrano (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

"Clarin is not a tabloid" and the "highest newspaper of Argentina" see [1] and Clarín. Thats without even trying, please don't assert something when it can be easily shown to be false, it fundamentally undermines your credibility. You obviously have a great passion for this but as I said that isn't what wikipedia is about. Its not there to right great wrongs or to provide a soapbox. It isn't a venue for original research or historical revisionism. Both of you are arguing from the POV of WP:OR. Now I have pointed you to policy guidelines, I would suggest you take the time to study those and look again at proposing a suitable edit. Regards, Justin talk 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

A google search about Clarin? Is that your only answer? I would point the different meanings of the word "tabloid" (a newspaper format size, wich Clarin has, or the one with negative connotations, being given to gossip and sensationalism, wich it isn't), but we would move away from the topic. So far, I and Argentino have named historiographic flows, historians from each one, quotes, links, etc; but you haven't demostrated any expertise in the topic at hand. You just talk about history in the broadest of terms, and then cite policies, guidelines and essays to justify your statements, but no sources on the topic itself.

Tell us wich book do you have about Juan Manuel de Rosas, or about history of Argentina in general and part of it about Rosas in particular, so we can compare and contextualize things. Or even better: do you say that the mitrist history is the mainstream one, and those historians I cited as just telling "fringe theories" and shouldn't be considered? Well, name some specific argentine historian from the last 20 or 30 years that rejects revisionism and post revisionism in it's all, and stick to the mitrist history, without doubts, complains or corrections. Some list of quotes from historians considering Rosas a dictator in an open and direct manner would also be useful... and, if possible, demostrate that you don't limit to reply to us by citing other people that do that, besides the already mentioned (by me) Mitre and Sarmiento

And no generic sayings like "all of them" or "all the ones I have read": give names. Or better, names and books. MBelgrano (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No I posted a google search about Clarin, to illustrate that you claimed it wasn't a tabloid when it is. So no it isn't my only answer and don't try and turn things around. Don't say one thing, then try and turn it into another; you only look foolish.

Some more reading for you, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, both of which you've just violated. Again, I would re-iterate that I am quoting policy to you purely to guide you toward an acceptable edit if you wish to introduce the material in question to the article. Further you seem to be of the opinion that consensus is a matter of ranging sources against each other; it ain't. I've pointed you to relevant policies, again its to guide you. You actually agreed with me that the mainstream historical opinion classifies Rosas as dictator, or Caudillo, if you prefer. If you must know I'd probably quote Lynch's biography of Rosas but apparently only Argentine authors are allowed. Sorry again, no you don't constrain debate in that manner.

So again I would suggest you consider the policy guidelines I've referred to and propose a suitable edit. But if you again personalise this, I will simply assume you're editing with a POV agenda. Justin talk 21:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Justin, "we" did not agree on anything. I said mainstreem historians avoid the "dictator" thing because they consider it to be a pointless and endless discussion between two different political points of view. Please, tell us in which book you read that Rosas was a "Dictator". Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No "we" didn't, MBelgrano did. I did actually refer to one above - there are plenty. The English literature is replete with them. Now, I am well aware that Rosas rule is of some controversy in Argentina, with revisionists portraying him as a sort of hero, with others railing against autocratic rule. But again I draw your attention to the policy of NPOV.

Latin America's Wars: The age of the caudillo, 1791-1899 By Robert L. Scheina pp 117

Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800-1850 By John Lynch pp 241 Juan Manuel de Rosas: Authoritarian Caudillo and Primitive Populist, Jeffrey M. Shumway Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel De Rosas By John Lynch Justin talk 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you are aware of the existence of the controversy, then why is there all this rejection to name it? Why disregard it as a "fringe theory"? Is it because you can't find supporters for it among english historians? Well, I'm afraid I must tell you that the "minority viewpoints" bit of the neutrality policy was never meant to apply on a geographical scale. If some viewpoint is a minority one somewhere but a mainstream one somewhere else, or having a strong scholar dispute, then it's not a minority one for wikipedia, wich does not aim to be written from either an argentine or an english perspective, but from an international one.

This is more so when we deal with interpretations rather than facts. Facts are for example wich actions of government had or hadn't Rosas enacted (on this level, there aren't much serious disputes about Rosas). The interpretations are to take those facts and draw conclusions from them: Rosas being a dictator is an interpretation, Rosas being a national heroe is another interpretation, Rosas not being either thing is yet another one. To decide whenever there's a mainstream interpretation on the topic or many disputed ones, it should be evaluated on a global scale, not on a localist one. Of course, systemic bias favourable to english-speaking countries is likely to take place over non-english ones, but such bias have to be detected and fixed, not kept. MBelgrano (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of bias are unhelpful and could well be construed as a personal attack. Even in Argentina the mainstream view of Rosas is as a Caudillo. It is a verified fact. That revisionist historians seek to portray him as otherwise for political reasons in modern day Argentina is fringe material under wikipedia guidelines. Now having taking the trouble to explain this to you repeatedly and having been subjected to abuse and attacks on my integrity in return, I do not intend to continue this discussion further. Good day. Justin talk 08:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the relationship between caudillo and dictator. Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, a caudillo is a strong leader, with a paternalist authority and/or cult of personality. Followers of a caudillo usually don't follow a political party or a purpose or ideology, they follow the caudillo himself. I can see that essay writers might be interested in drawing relations between both concepts, but it would be just a relation, not synonymous. Dictators don't need to be charismatic to be dictators, and caudillos don't need to be in government in a dictatorial way. Even more: caudillos don't even need to be governors to begin with. MBelgrano (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? It is generally translated into English as dictator in this context. Caudillo is an article that already exists, the term could easily be used here if you prefer. Justin talk 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That "caudillo" translates as "dictator" is original research (or invention). If we were to follow Justin's rule, then all the Kings of England before 1214, Kings of France before 1786, Kings of Germany before Francis II, and so on, every one of them should be called "dictator". But they arent. Why? Because it was a common rule in their country to do what they did. But then some guy decides to kill the King and install a republic. So we go to Oliver Cromwell and we find, in the opening section:

"Cromwell has been a very controversial figure in the history of the British Isles – a regicidal dictator to some historians (such as David Hume and Christopher Hill) and a hero of liberty to others (such as Thomas Carlyle and Samuel Rawson Gardiner)."

As you can see, when many historians share opposite points of view, they are all mentioned by name. Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, in your rush to make a further personal attack you failed to notice I offered a simple way to avoid using the English language word you're so offended by. The other point you fail to register this is an article about the History of Argentina not Rosas. Seeing as you've seized on Oliver Cromwell as an example, the article on Cromwell goes into the nuances in detail, whereas the English Civil War (analogous to this article) merely describes him as "effectively a military dictator". If you spent as much energy in trying to compose an edit within the policy guidelines I've attempted to guide you with you might actually get somewhere. That Caudillo translates to dictator in this context is not original research and had you taken the time to follow the wikilink I provided you would have seen that. So once again your bad faith assumption is getting you nowhere. Justin talk 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi related topic

This article has a tag that mentions that the article includes many weasel words, wich I had begun to fix. I also edited the part about Rosas when I saw it, but when Justin reverted my edit, he did not revert that edit, he reverted them all (see here). This includes, for example, restoring a clear mistake like linking Military junta when talking about the Primera Junta, instead of Junta (Peninsular War). But even being sure that my edit was correct according to reliable sources on the topic, I did not restore it to avoid it becoming an edit war.

Question: what if I leave the Rosas bit as it is now while the talking goes on, but in the meantime restore the other changes I made and keep fixing other uses of weasel words? Do you find them acceptable, or do I need to explain them as well? MBelgrano (talk) 03:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is unnecessary, fixing errors is not a content issue. Justin talk 09:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Nazis

This issue needs to be raised again. Why does the section on the Peron years contain nothing about the numerous old Nazis who hid out in Argentina after WWII, the most notorious of whom were Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele? The article German Argentine includes the following:

"After World War II, under Juan Perón's government, Argentina participated in establishing and facilitating secret escape routes out of Germany to South America for ex-SS officials (referred as ODESSA network). Former Nazi officials emigrated to Argentina in order to prevent prosecution, some of them lived in Argentina under their real names while others clandestinely obtained new identities. Some of the most known Nazis that emigrated to Argentina are: Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele, Aribert Heim, Erich Priebke, Eduard Roschmann and "Bubi" Ludolf von Alvensleben."

This should be included in History of Argentina and probably in the history section of the Argentina entry as well. Sca (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)