Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Legacy section

The description about what Revisionismo movement doesn't fit with can be read at Revisionismo histórico en Argentina. Adolfo Saldías, precursor of revisionism in Argentina, published Historia de la Confederación Argentina in 1881, while "Nacionalismo was a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s". Makes me wonder what exactly 'Nacionalismo' political movement would be. --Langus (t) 20:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're asking us to use as a model an article in Spanish that has no sources. It makes no sense. The sources used on Rosas article are regarded as the best in English. --Lecen (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking you to explain how can it be that the first Argentine revisionist historian started writing 40 years before the political movement to which revisionism is allegedly related to even existed. I'm arguing that the information is wrong, that's why I'm asking you what exactly 'Nacionalismo' political movement would be (please answer).
And no, we don't present only the "best" sources, ditching away the "not so good" ones. That's not allowed to us. --Langus (t) 08:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
What? Instead of using the best sources, we should use not so good ones"? "That's not allowed to us"? Huh? --Lecen (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV:
Key points are "all of the significant views" and "reliable sources". Unreliable sources are the only ones that we can't use in Wikipedia.
You didn't address my concerns, I'm still waiting for your answer. --Langus (t) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There a number of good sources now in English on the revisionist movement in Argentina and its links to both Peronism and National Socialism. I could point out [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I note that they consistently reflect what is currently in the article. Hope that helps. WCMemail 21:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you WCM, now I understand the problem a bit more. And I have to say I disagree: in the article there is a clear association of Revisionism with the military coup of 1930, even so far as describing the movement as "authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic". Jumping from revisionism to the military coup to the negative aspects of the regime in three sentences one after the other is original synthesis of ideas. For starters, the Revisionism movement is more often associated with Peronism, not the 1930s. But more importantly, it is an independent historiographical movement, that even if it agrees with the nationalistic vision of a military coup or a political party, it was in no way born under their fueling an certainly doesn't depend on any of them to exist (just think about it: the political movement of 1930 and Peronism have nothing in common except being highly nationalistic).
In sum, if you insist of leaving the revisionist point of view outside of this article, even going so far as to demonize it, you didn't understand what Wikipedia strives for. --Langus (t) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Nowhere the article makes any mention of any coup in 1930. There is no "clear association of Revisionism with the military coup of 1930". The movement is described as "authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic" because it's all respected historians in the field have described it. I cannot hide that. And yes: I will insist in leaving Revisionist out of the article, since it's considered fringe theory by mainstream historiography.
Im trying to understand why you got so interested in the article. It was abandoned for over a year. You never bothered to edit on it, to complain about something. Nothing. The moment I say I'm going to finish it you suddenly appear? Can you explain that? --Lecen (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
You are taking this personal... I've always watched this article, in fact I've edited here before. A change you introduced ("little michaels") caught my attention, so I investigated for the proper translation and corrected it.[7]
You are wrong in describing revisionism as a fringe theory, and that's what we need to discuss, specially if you want to WP:FINISH this article. --Langus (t) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Mmm, I don't think the none too subtle threat to disrupt a GA drive unless your content is accepted is helpful. Lecen is actually correct that most mainstream historians regards Revisionist historians as fringe, their habit of making stuff without hard evidence is one reason why. WCMemail 08:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
A threat??? My remark was intended to be ironic, have you followed the link? (yes of course you have; I think you were the one who introduced me to that essay in the first place). Please don't add more fuel to the fire, WCM...
"Mainstream historians" are not the only ones with a right to speak in WP. We as editors are required to reflect every POV available in literature, regardless of what their mainstream opponents think of them.
"A fringe theory is, broadly speaking, an idea or viewpoint held by a small minority of supporters". Are you both claiming that the revisionist scholar work is a small minority in the literature? That's nonsense. One of the best-seller historians nowadays in Argentina, Felipe Pigna, is a revisionist. Felix Luna was a revisionist. Ironically, if we speak from an audience perspective, it doesn't get more mainstream than Luna or Pigna. --Langus (t) 22:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Text as a medium doesn't convey irony at all well, I doubt I was the only one to perceive that comment as threatening a GA drive.

Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? sold in excess of 63,000,000 copies; popularity does not mean it is not a fringe theory. Whilst the Revisionist movement is popular in Argentina, particularly in the Peronist movement, it is not widely regarded outside of the country as reliable. Most of its proponents do not follow established norms in scholarly work, produce work that could be described as an agenda based fiction and reach conclusions that are not supported by evidence - and as I noted earlier are not above simply inventing facts. Please do not confuse work that is dominated by political considerations as reliable or claim it is of a scholastic standard. You once tried to argue that something "true from an Argentine perspective" made it a fact, it didn't then and it doesn't now. I can see a reprise of the arguments that lead to the arbcom case, in that case it was noted these sources were unreliable.

I have never shrunk from expressing my opinion that the outcome of the arbcom case was unjust, or from expressing criticism of Lecen's conduct and I doubt it would come as a surprise to anyone he is not an editor I hold in high regard. I am commenting on content not the editor and in this case the content is pretty well written.

You state above we are required to reflect every POV available. You are fundamentally wrong, we are in fact required to deliver a balanced view of the range of opinions in the literature. If you refer to the sources provided above, the article currently does give a reasonable account of this work. WP:NPOV does not simply require stating a range of POV and allowing them to stand without any criticism. WCMemail 22:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

How to write an article

I am more than happy with the idea of having people willing to collaborate on the article. However, we need to do it right.

What is wrong with these edits by BarrelProof? Here's the answer:

1) The article has an obvious and clear structure: every section is composed of three paragraphs. Three. BarrelProof has created four for no reason, breaking an established standard.

2) "Similarly impressed" was added to the text. Does the source mentions that the person was "impressed" with Rosas? No. Then, do NOT write what is not mentioned in the source. It's that simple.

3) "Rosas was an impressive man". The same problem as above. The source merely mentions that Rosas was handsome. Why was "impressive" added? We can not add information that is not originally mentioned in the source used.

Now for Langus-TxT edits:

1) The first historical view presented represents the ideas of a neorevisionist. Argentine revisionism cannot be used as reliable source. You cannot present it first, because anyone will think that it's the main view among historians. That's POV pushing. Worse: you used Pacho O'Donnel, one of the most unreliable "historians" out there.

2) Then you mention "other historians", like these were a minority, an alternative view to the main one, the mainstream one. This is blatant POV pushing, Langus. It's wrong. You're trying hard to impose fringe views here and that's unacceptable.

Just because Wikipedia is not a scientific magazine or book, its doesn't mean that we cannot be professionals. We can. In fact, we must. I write my articles as they were written for a publication. I want them not only to look good, but I want them to have the highest standing. I'm not asking something impossible, folks. I'm not. But you two are not helping. I'm asking you both to change your behavior and start being truly helpful. In the case of BarrelProof, I believe his unsourced additions were honest mistakes. In Langus' case, it's obvious he's pushing a POV. What makes his behavior the most outrageous is that he's trying hard to enforce the views of anti-semitic, authoritarian, racist and fascist publicists. If Langus persists with that, I'll have to report him. I do not want to do that. It's a nightmare. I'll have to deal with a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators. However, I will not tolerate anyone pushing anti-semitic and racist authors around. --Lecen (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You are asking me to go against one WP five pillars, that's what you're doing. Please do report me. Now. Thank you. --Langus (t) 00:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
No he is not Langus but you are. I dare say if it comes down to a report at WP:AE or even WP:ANI you may regret that remark. And I say WP:AE because I note that Bookworm felt you were editing by proxy for Cambalachero. I seriously doubt it based on my personal interactions with Cambalachero but someone else might. WCMemail 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
My edits were not "for no reason". I expressed my reasoning in an edit summary for every edit. My impression is that the topic discussed in part of that paragraph seemed quite out-of-context, relative to what was in the preceding part of the paragraph – so I separated one paragraph into two and modified the wording to try to make the prose flow more smoothly. I had no idea that there was something special about the number of paragraphs in that section – a styling point that I suggest is not as important as having paragraphs that make logical sense as unified topics, but if others think that is important, I'm willing to listen. As you can see, my edit summary for the first of those edits said "Some copyedit. The discussion of his handsomeness didn't seem to flow very well with the rest. Trying to improve that as best I can." I am trying to help and to collaboratively improve the article as best I can. After being criticized for trying to discuss and resolve some previous edit warring about the currency and remarking about postage stamps, it was suggested for me to try to improve other aspects of the article, so I followed that suggestion. Although the cited source may not have used the word "impressed", I don't think there is any inaccuracy introduced by using that word, as it accurately reflects what the source portrayed. Please note that the word was not used within quotes, so it is not required to be verbatim wording. Of course, if others think that it is not a good choice of wording, I am willing to listen, discuss, and collaborate to help find the best approach. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the suggestion that mention of the currency and stamps may be of relevance; they are evidence of the rehabilitation of Rosa's image but not definitively so. I do however strongly disagree with the edit that was added last night in the place it was to imply that there is no longer any controversy over Rosas in Argentina. I have copy edited to remove the none neutral implication of those edits. WCMemail 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@WCM: (about a different edit than the one you discussed just above) I see that you just (very quickly!) objected to an introductory phrase that I added that said "However, further acknowledgements of him as a significant historical figure have followed—", saying "rm editorialising - sources still state this remains controversial". I'd like to point out that the phrase did not say that that these things were uncontroversial. It simply stated a clear fact – that these things occurred. The phrase also does not say anything non-neutral about him—just that he was "a significant historical figure", which is clearly a true and uncontroversial statement. I think it is desirable to have some phrase to introduce that sentence, to improve the flow of the narrative of the article. Without it, I think the sentence is rather disconnected from the rest of the paragraph, and perhaps should be in a separate paragraph (which I don't think would really be desirable). How about "Further commemorations of his legacy have since appeared, [... banknote, statue, metro station]—although they have remained controversial."? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I left your edit pretty much unchanged, I just removed unnecessary embellishment. Are these really further acknowledgements of him and by whom? You were editorialising and that is not encouraged in articles. WCMemail 16:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
To respond to your "by whom?" question – that would be by government entities (national and local), I suppose. The article says that prior to the repatriation of his remains, there were no memorials ("no monument to him in the entire nation; no park, plaza, or street bears his name"). If, after the repatriation, he began to appear on currency, postage stamps, a statue in a public place (which Wikipedia calls a "major monument"), and a metro station, are those not clearly further acknowledgements? Or perhaps "further commemoration"? Without some introductory phrase, I think the transition is a bit abrupt and the reader needs to stop and wonder why these facts are being mentioned at that place in that paragraph about repatriation of his remains. (As I mentioned before, changing that sentence into a separate paragraph might be another way to handle the transition, but that might be undesirable for other reasons.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that flow needs improvement. Also, finishing with "although they have remained controversial" seems like a good addition: there is a group of neighbors that still want to change the metro station's name. Same thing with the 20 pesos bill: there are people here and there who want them replaced, as well as the one with Roca on its face (the 100 note). --Langus (t) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It would actually better to note that "although references to Rosas remain controversial and there are suggestions remove them", noting Langus' comments I'm sure that can be sourced. WCMemail 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Twenty-pesos note

I've noticed a bit of edit warring over the twenty-peso note, a statue and a metro station. It does seem clear (see this and this, for example) that his image is on the twenty-pesos note. I suggest that his presence on the note is significant, and worth mentioning in the article. And I suggest that those two links seem like reasonably reliable sources that are sufficient to establish that as fact. In fact, I think a picture of the note would be a good addition to the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You got it wrong: that's not the problem. The problem is that Langus has been removing sourced content. --Lecen (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Haha the problem is that Lecen hates Rosas, and thinks that the revisionist movement (or any positive view on Rosas, like the decision of Menem's government of honoring him in a bill) should censored-out of Wikipedia.
I'd say we need outside assistance to get this solved. --Langus (t) 01:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my removal of Lecen's last comment – it was a mistake, and I want to thank Lecen for fixing that. I was trying to expand my prior remark and there was an edit conflict. I didn't realize that I was deleting your comment by saving that edit. Anyhow, I was trying to say that I thought that adding a picture of the twenty peso bill to the article seemed like a good idea. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Langus, you don't know me to accuse me of "hating" someone. Please, refrain from doing that. I'm using reliable sources; the ones regarded as the best in mainstream historiography. If you have just as reliable and respected sources, we can add them to the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with BarrelProof. Lecen what do you think? --Langus (t) 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently his image was also put onto some postage stamps, and there was some commentary about this in the following journal article: Bushnell, David. "Postal Images of Argentine Proceres: A Look at Selective Myth-Making". Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, vol. 1, pp. 91–105 (1982). It might be desirable to look up that article and perhaps to use it as a reference, and to mention the stamps in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? Stamps? What's next? T-shirts? --Lecen (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
If the government issues T-shirts with Rosas' portrait on the front and prints them in large numbers for widespread use and requires them to be accepted for conducting some class of transactions (and expects people to lick the back of them), then yes, that would be very noteworthy. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not at all convinced that postage stamps are notable enough for mention, especially when you consider the range of people, events, flowers, animals, rocks, buildings, vehicles and other subjects that now get plastered on postal stamps to appeal to various category collectors. I agree that the banknote image is worthy of inclusion, however. • Astynax talk 18:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
[8] I think you'll find including images of Argentine currency are a copyright violation, I would imagine this would be picked up in any GA review. Generally you might get to use them on article on currency with a WP:FUR but I very much doubt that extends here. WCMemail 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
[9] Btw the same applies to images of stamps. WCMemail 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that the page about the file contains remarks about that. However, my understanding is that there is an acceptable fair-use rationale for using a picture of the currency in the context of commentary or criticism about the currency itself (e.g., as opposed to using it for some unrelated purpose, such as for merely decorative purposes). Here we have a discussion of recent effort by the government to endorse a modified perception of a historical figure, which has included the erection of a statue, portrait placement on currency and postage stamps, etc. My impression was that such a discussion of the currency itself could include the image. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem with a fair use rationale, is that they require the image is not widely used. Its currently used in Argentine peso, so re-using it here would be pushing the edge of the envelope. Paging Moonriddengirl your expertise is requested. WCMemail 19:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the situation is that as the image is used on Argentine peso, there would be no need to include it as you can simply state his image is on the 20 peso note and include a wikinlink. I see you added a FUR to the image upload I would strongly suggest waiting before adding it back. WCMemail 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Usage in two articles hardly seems like a situation that's spinning out of control, but I don't object to the suggested wikilink approach (if it seems necessary to avoid using the image). I don't understand the remark saying "I see you added a FUR to the image upload". I did not modify the file's page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I took another look at the file's page, and I do indeed see a FUR there about the use in this article. But I did not add it. I think it was already there before I came along. I don't understand how to look up the history to see who added that and when. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Now I see how to find the history – I had to look at the history of the page, not the history of the image. That FUR was added at 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)‎ by Cambalachero. To me, it seems apt. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Having been pinged by WCM, I'm just popping in to say that there's no strict one-only rule that I'm aware of. :) I think you just need to make sure that the use is necessary and defensible. IF you have questions, I'd suggest WT:NFC, as the people who hang out there do a lot more with non-free files than I do. :) It's what I would do if I wasn't sure myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Replying to the above remark by Astynax, I would agree that in some cases, the appearance of something on a postage stamp is not especially important. But here the postage stamp is symptomatic of a reinterpretation of the role of this person in history, and it is discussed in a reliable peer-reviewed academic journal. I think that makes it noteworthy. (I'm not saying it's worth three paragraphs, but I think it's worth mentioning.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
A brief mention is relevant but I agree I don't think its worth extensive commentary. WCMemail 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who believes that this entire discussion is pointless? All this trouble over a banknote? Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss (perhaps even add information) about how Rosas is perceived nowadays in Argentina, the best places are Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body. Tomorrow I'll add a line (sourced line, of course) talking about the 1989-2014 period. And that's it. I'm done with this "discussion". --Lecen (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are the only one to believe that, wikipedia is a co-operative endeavour after all. WCMemail 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no trouble with co-operative endeavor. If it's was up to me, I'd have other editors helping me with all research, writing and reviewing process of this article. However, I can't waste time debating whether or not a banknote should be in the article. It's pointless. --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well removing copy vios will help the GA drive. As regards research, are you aware of this [10]? I was looking for something that covered the Menem period - this gives quite a balanced view of the range of opinions and the motivations of the period. Its worth taking the time to read. WCMemail 23:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, WCM. I'm already using that book as a source (see bibliography). I even talked with the author of the essay on Rosas when I was providing sources for the ArbCom case. If you have other suggestions, I'd be grateful. If you can, take your time to review the entire article and point out flaws. --Lecen (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I see some parallels between Rosas and Andrew Jackson – another military leader of the same time period who fought relentlessly against the Indians that opposed him while being generous with the Indians that supported him, became the head of state, held his country together as a union against divisive forces, and exercised a generally strong force of will in his leadership – sometimes using tactics that are not considered appropriate today. Not to stretch that point too far, of course, but I think there are some similarities. Incidentally, the first two entries in the list of memorials to Jackson in the Wikipedia article about him are that he appears on his country's 20-unit note of currency and on its postage stamps. There is a picture of the currency note at that point in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

From a request at NFC: No, the image of the banknote is not allowed to be used in the manner being suggested, per WP:NFC#UUI#9. Unless there is critical discussion about the way he is represented on the banknote, using the image here when it is already used at the article on the banknotes in general is excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the context. #9 says that such a picture (e.g., of a magazine cover) could be used "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article". The notion here is indeed to discuss the currency, not merely to illustrate the person that is depicted, since the presence of the portrait on the currency is a historic development that departs from the prior governmental practice of not having any public commemorations of this person. So it does not appear to me that this usage necessarily runs afoul of #9. However, I think the wikilink suffices if others feel differently. I guess it's true that we're not trying to discuss the way he is represented on the banknote – merely the fact that he is represented on the banknote (but the guideline does not say "if the way the person is represented on the cover itself is the subject of ..."). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

O'Donnell WP:FRINGE according to Arbcom

Both Lecen and Astynax have removed a book by O'Donnell claiming Arbcom found said author to be WP:FRINGE ([11][12]). Could I get a link to that decision please? Thanks, Gaba (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Article soon to be finished

I expect this article to be finished in a week, at most. --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Now the article has high quality pictures all over it. As soon as I can I'll try to finish it once and for all. --Lecen (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Those look good! • Astynax talk 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Finished "Exile and death" section. Astynax, please make any corrections necessary. --Lecen (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done with "Rebellions and foreign threat". --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Tomorrow I'll finish the last sections as well as the lead. --Lecen (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Good news: the article is completely finished. Astynax, if you can, please improve the lead. --Lecen (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, I forgot to ask you to check "Wars and defeat" as well. Sorry. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pacho O'Donnell

Please stop reinserting references to this author. O'Donnell's lack of credentials as a historian, neo-revisionist PoV and other problems have been extensively discussed (including at Arbcom's Argentine History case) and is WP:FRINGE for this topic. • Astynax talk 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, looks like you missed the section I opened above. Could you please point me to wherever it was concluded/consensuated that O'Donnell is a WP:FRINGE author please? Thank you. Gaba (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the WP:ARBARG case, particularly at the final decision where pushing O'Donnell is the author used as a rationale behind the sanctions. • Astynax talk 18:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Astynax, thanks for your answer. Could I ask you to be a bit more precise? I've looked at the entire WP:ARBARG page, paying special attention to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#Final_decision but I see no indication of O'Donnell being declared a WP:FRINGE author, nor any decision regarding that author whatsoever. Could you clarify? Gaba (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have my hands tied, since I requested a mutual interaction ban with the other users. What I could tell you is to look at the "evidence" page and read my stuff there, then you should go final decision. --Lecen (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the Evidence page, which does demonstrate that revisionismo sources are fringe (as had been pointed out by others in various articles), see the footnotes cited in the final decision. Note also that the case was specifically brought regarding pushing revisionismo sources in this and other Argentine-related articles. • Astynax talk 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Lecen I don't know why you feel you could not talk freely, I have not asked anything about any editor. Both you and Astynax have stated that O'Donnell has been deemed a WP:FRINGE author at Arbcom. My question is simple: where is this stated? No need to comment on other editors, just point me to where this was decided in Arbcom. Since this was the entire rationale for your removal of the book from the article, my request is I believe quite logical.
  • Astynax the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History/Evidence demonstrates nothing. It's just a compilation of how several editors saw the issue. What "footnotes" are you talking about?
Either of you feel free to point me to the right link. Thanks. Gaba (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by arbitrators and even the motions passed confirm that it will be impossible to find such a statement or prohibition in the cited ArbCom:

Principle: Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee 7) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources fairly represented in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. While reasonable editors may, in good faith, disagree about the weight of particular viewpoints in reliable sources, it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors. However, editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy. Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And even individual comments:

  • "Content disagreements are not addressed by this Committee; user misconduct, which may include disruptive editing and misrepresentation of sources, is addressed, when other dispute methods have failed. We could use some input here from previously uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise as to which side of the line this dispute falls on." --Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "I'm seeing this as a content dispute. Both editors have worked on the Juan Manuel de Rosas article since 2009, and there is disagreement over the content, and the two parties have been discussing the matter. Sometimes it can be difficult to reach a solution; however, it is not ArbCom's place to make a decision on content. ArbCom looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues." --SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of those comments and my understanding of WP:RS, each source should be examined individually and in regard to the content that they are backing up. --Langus (t) 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Langus-TxT, could you explain to us why do you insist on claiming that the revisionist Pacho O'Donnell is a reliable source, knowing that revisionism is an authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist political movement? --Lecen (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Lecen and Astynax: I am still waiting for a link to the Arbcom decision you mentioned. If there is no such thing (as I suspect and Langus seems to confirm) I'm going to ask either of you to restore the book you removed from the article. You don't get to unilaterally decide a historian is WP:FRINGE just because you don't like him. At the very least it should be discussed in WP:RSN. I am all for having such a discussion but in the meantime you need to either produce a link showing that O'Donnell is indeed a rejected author or restore the appropriate source into the article. I'll await your comments. Gaba (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I already told you where to look at. I can't do no more than that or I'd have to mention the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban. You cab either read it by yourself or forget it. I won't draw it for you. This is my last warning about this matter: Pacho O'Donnel is a revisionist. Argentine revisionism is regarded as fringe theory by mainstream historiography. Argentine revisionism is an authoritarian, anti-semitic and racist political movement. And lastly: Pacho O'Donnel's book has NO reference matter and no bibliography, which would be enough to not allow it's use as reliable source, even if it wasn't revisionist. If you insist on using an authoritarian, anti-semitic and racist source I'll will report you and you'll probably end up banned from editing anything related to Latin American history. It's your choice. If it was up to me, you would both stop being annoying and would do something truly helpful, like writing an article, doing research for an article, etc... --Lecen (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Lecen, being the first time we interact (as far as I can recall) I'm going to let your threats, disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:FOC, lack of WP:AGF and obvious issues with WP:OWN slide this time. Now for the clear issues with your above comment:
  • What you "told" me was to look through an Arbcom thread which at no point came to the conclusion that O'Donnel is a WP:FRINGE author. And when I say "at no point" I mean that the issue was not even touched in the slightest. This is a apparently your own view on the matter, but as you know, this is WP. You don't get to unilaterally decide which authors are good enough. As I stated earlier, I never asked you to comment on any editor so why you would keep bringing up this "interaction ban" is beyond me. This is a discussion about a book, not about other editors.
  • "Pacho O'Donnel is a revisionist", why do i care?
  • "Argentine revisionism is regarded as fringe theory by mainstream historiography."[citation needed]
  • "Argentine revisionism is an authoritarian, anti-semitic and racist political movement."[citation needed] Also, it's funny you should mention anti semitic seeing how just a few months ago O'Donnell was named president of the Israeli Association of Culture and Science[13].
  • "Pacho O'Donnel's book has NO reference matter and no bibliography", What are you talking about? Did you even bother to go through the book?
  • "I'll will report you and you'll probably end up banned from editing anything related to Latin American history.", WP:ANI is that way my friend. Enjoy your WP:BOOMERANG.
In the meantime, as soon as I have a few minutes I'll open a ticket at WP:RSN so we can discuss the book, hopefully in a more collegial manner. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you both back off. Your own behavior has been threatening and unconstructive (reversions and demands such as "either produce a link or restore the source please"). As you seem not to understand the Arbcom case, then perhaps someone at RSN can explain it to you. Insistence on including refs to O'Donnell and his fringe PoV is starting to look like something more than mere confusion, however. • Astynax talk 16:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of what I should back off from since I've been nothing but polite and perfectly WP:CIVIL to both of you (have I "threatened" you in any way as you seem to imply? I certainly don't think so, care to show a diff?). My "demand" that either of you restore a perfectly valid source after the evidence you claimed for its removal turned out to be non-existent seems to me quite a valid request (and I note that neither of you have yet restored the source). I have nothing to "understand" from that Arbcom case since it dealt with editors, not with sources and much less specifically with O'Donnell. The Arbcom case is thus worth precisely nothing regarding the issue at hand.
I'd say that what definitely looks like something more than mere confusion is the insistence that a respectable historian is a "fringe PoV" author. I'll open the ticket at WP:RSN if not today, surely tomorrow. Regards. Gaba (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I just realized this issue has already been raised at WP:RSN by Langus [14] but haven't recieved much attention. Perhaps an RfC will be appropriate next if no outside input is gathered over there, perhaps something even above that so as to involve admins too. In the meantime I'm going to ask one more time: Lecen and Astynax please restore the source you removed with no justification from the article. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead is supposed to summarize the article, which it does. There is no need for references in it, since the references can be found in the article. --Lecen (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you Lecen, but that is not the issue here, at least not anymore (in any case, this edit could very well be introduced into the body of the article, not necessarily the lead). You and Astynax have teamed to remove a perfectly valid source from the article claiming something which turned out not to be true. Furthermore you both have made it very clear that you do not intent on allowing neither O'Donnell nor any other author deemed a "revisionist" by yourselves into the article. That is big issue and it needs to be resolved. I've commented at WP:RSN and I invite you to participate. Gaba (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Politically motivated and in close alliance with neorevisionists

Lecen says[15] that authors are referring to the Kirchner couple, but that doesn't explain much. I presume that he's referring to the "Menem's successors" expression, but the Kirchners had nothing to do with the metro station (which was the decision of Buenos Aires' local government) or the 20 Pesos bill (which is due to Menem). Also, "Politically motivated" and "in close alliance with neorevisionists" is highly controversial.

Right now I'm very doubtful about the sentence as a whole, so I expect Lecen to transcribe the precise quotes to support this edit from the cited sources:

  • Goebel, pages 217–218 & 220
  • Johnson, page 133
  • Lanctot, pages 1 & 4

In the meanwhile I have tagged the expression with a redirect to this section. Thanks. --Langus (t) 03:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What metro station? No metro station is mentioned in the article. Would it be too much to ask of you to actually read the article before coming here and being annoying? Really, could you make an effort? --Lecen (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Lecen the tone of your comment is definitely not helpful. Could you perhaps be a bit more WP:CIVIL so we can all discuss the matter in an amicable way? Thanks. Gaba (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Lecen, there was a metro station mentioned in our previous edit, as an exemplification of how Rosas' image is being treated my latter politicians. If you took that out with the sole intention of blaming this shift the the Kirchners (and it seems that you want us to talk only about them) that is rather POV-ish.
Astynax this tag removal is unwarranted unless you can provide the quotes I'm asking for. I'm re-adding it and I ask you to leave it there until one of you stops ignoring me and addresses my request: quote the sources, please --Langus (t) 20:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
When the sources are already cited, and available online for anyone to see, this comes across as harassment. Goebel, page 217-219 explicitly supports what the text summarized. Placing a tag just because you disagree is invalid. • Astynax talk 23:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I am shocked to read that these politicians might have been politically motivated. But it seems clear that anyone who disagrees with what was written about these suspicious politicians must be a "revisionist" and therefore must be "authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogenistic" (and they probably believe in "Nazism, Fascism and Integralism") and thus they cannot be allowed to have their views considered legitimate in the article? Is that a bit of a Catch-22? (Quotes here are from the current text of the article.)
More seriously, it is clear that Lecen and Astynax know a lot more about this topic than I do, and have much better access to sources, and I really must respect that and try to restrain myself from making a hasty conclusion. But I do wonder whether the article is quite properly balanced. I don't really see an evident well-established consensus (here or elsewhere that I have seen) that the "revisionists" and these politicians represent only a small fringe perspective and clearly have sinister motivations. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If you believe that the article has a problem with balance, then you should start reading the sources. If we were unfaithful to them, you should report us at once. Here they are:
The sources aren't in Mars, they right there, on Google. What is unacceptable is that you keep accusing me but don't bother reading the sources. Either do that or stop making the accusations. --Lecen (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for making an effort to clarify the case as you see it (both here and at WP:RSN). Personally, I have not reached a conclusion about the so-called "revisionist" and "neorevisionist" sources, and I did not mean to give an impression that I had. Clearly, your knowledge about this article is far superior to mine, and you have invested considerable effort into improving it, and I would like to thank you for that as well. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Where Rosas settled in Britain

@Lecen: leaving aside the discourtesy of giving no edit summary for this revert, could you please explain why it's not appropriate to identify where in the UK Rosas settled? It's an obvious omission in the section. Additionally, a "British tenant farmer" is not the same thing as a tenant farmer in Britain. He was the latter not the former. DeCausa (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DeCausa. As you can see, the article is fully sourced. We are trying to keep it accordingly. I corrected the "British tenant farm" and added the location of his farm, according to the reliable sources employed in the article. --Lecen (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Lecen: You misunderstand. What I added was in the source already cited for the sentence: {{Sfn|Lynch|1981|pp=343–344, 346–347}}. It's on page 346 of Lynch. (And by the way, Southampton is a city, not a town.) DeCausa (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I'm sorry. I'm so used to editors showing up and adding nonsense to article that I didn't think. --Lecen (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent tags

I have cleaned up some of the recent GF edits that appeared to be problematic. In doing so, I have also removed tags asking for clarification. In the case of the character of Rosas, that is something that develops through the remainder of the article. The "colonial times" were already referenced in the section tagged (i.e., the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata). The killing of Dorrego might be considered "assassination", but that is probably oversimplification, as it would be wrong to give the implication that Lavalle himself did the killing. I have made small wording changes that hopefully will address the other concerns. When the Rosas governorship ended in 1827, it was merely that his term of office came to a close, which is what the text says. Where the sources do not give background reasons for a particular act or event, it is sufficient to merely indicate what the source says rather than to delve into background that the source does not provide. Finally, WP:MOSREF does not mandate the change made to the footnote and reference section (note also that the use of the term "bibliography" is discouraged in headings by WP:LAYOUT). Thanks for the edits. • Astynax talk 23:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Astynax, thanks for your edits, but I am unsure as to why you refer to the tags as problematic. I know nothing of the source material; I came to this article because it was posted to the GOCE requests page. Therefore, when I see material that seems vague, I tag it; how best to deal with that is something I leave to the author. I certainly don't expect them to carry out synthesis, but surely in some cases the information is actually in the sources.
I am also unsure why you have reverted my edits to language that was occasionally flowery/peacockish in a way that added nothing to the article. Tell me, what does a sentence like "He soon afterward sought to forge a career for himself, leaving his parent's estate" add to this article, which "He left his parents' estate soon afterward, seeking a career for himself" does not? The second is purely factual; the first is veering towards the promotional. Another example is "caudillos fought for power and laid waste to the countryside" where the phrase "laid waste" is evocative without adding any factual information; it is appropriate to a book, perhaps, but not an encyclopedia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, I was the one who asked for help with copy-editing the article. I truly appreciate your effort in taking time to check the article. Making that clear, I don't agree with tag bombing the article. Most of the tags you added are truly unnecessary. You said that "finest" is a weasel word, which actually isn't. You asked why Rosas' education was unremarkable, when the text is pretty clear: he got a decent education expected from a member of the elite, but it didn't mean that he was reading classic philosophers or anything of the kind, which he later tried to do. Not only that, in many ways you made a complete overhaul of the article that is hard to recognize it. It has recently been copy-edited by a truly respected editor, and you undone many of his one corrections. If you want to help fixing issues in the article, please, be more careful. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Lecen, I respect the fact that a previous copy-editor went over this, and which is probably why the prose is high-quality to begin with; however, even the best can miss some things, and I believe I was addressing examples of those. As I mentioned in my comment above, I think there are several instances where the article uses flowery prose to no purpose. "finest school" is one of those. "Stalwart advocate" is another. These terms add very little. If you wish to magnify the terms because that is what the sources say, try something like "best known schools" or "highly regarded," so that Wikipedia is not passing judgement on them. There were also some changes made to extremely clunky language which you reverted, such as "who had an undistinguished military career and married into..." which is poorer than "who had had an undistinguished military career before marrying into..." or even just "who had an undistinguished military career before marrying into..." A final instance is "His conquest of the south opened up many additional possibilities for yet further territorial expansion, and he correctly predicted "The fine territories, which extend from the Andes to the coast and down to the Magellan Straits are now wide open for our children."" which contains a redundancy and an error, both of which you reverted back in. Rosas' statement is not a prediction; it's a statement about the present. "many additional...further expansion" is a redundancy. I do not wish to revert you, so would you please take care of these, or let me know that it's okay to do so? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Certainly Wikipedia won't be passing judgement on a forgotten private school from the early 19th century. Yes, he was a strong supporter of Buenos Aires primacy, not merely a support. Which is why his entire career had as purpose to achieve that primacy. I made a few changes to some of the sentences, per your suggestions. --Lecen (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for making those changes, but the first two points remain unaddressed. They are perfect examples of WP:PEACOCK. If he was a strong supporter, then say so; "stalwart" is meaningless. Likewise "finest." Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Then what term should be employed to describe a private school regarded as the best in Buenos Aires in 1800? --Lecen (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I offered some alternatives above. "Best known;" "widely known;" "selective;" or even "regarded as the best," because that is a factual statement about peoples' opinions, rather than the opinion itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just made the changes according to your suggestions. --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am nearly done with the copy-edit, should be finished later today. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Great! I really appreciate your help. --Lecen (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Lecen, I've added a couple more tags, which should be fairly quick to resolve. One other point, however; the nickname "restorer of the laws" is not actually mentioned in the body, and if it is not covered enough to be in the body, it should not be in the lede. You could either delete it in the lede or add info in the body; I am not particular as to which you do. Oh, and "forge his own career" is still in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It is all done. I made a few changes, following your comments. I took the liberty to remove that sentence you added to the lead. The first paragraph already deals with his early years, mentioning that he came from a wealthy family, that he acquired ranches and became rich, that he began a military career, etc... His role against the British is not mentioned because it was too small and non-important. The "nickname" is on the lead and it doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere else. Several articles have the nickname of a person right after his name in the lead and it isn't mentioned later. However, because of this I added sources and an explanation to why he got it. --Lecen (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead was my mistake, I was about to remove it myself. I'm still uncertain about the nickname; the footnote says that there are several nicknames. Why this one? If it is important enough to mention but the others are not, then surely some explanation in the body is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Restorer of the Laws", as said in the article, was given to him by the Parliament of Buenos Aires. "Tiger of Palermo" was given to him by oppositionists, journalists, foreigners because of his dictatorship. "Restorer of the Laws", though, has been used by historians to describe him. Honestly, I see no reason to add it to body of text. I rather prefer to follow other articles where they mention the epithet ("the great", "the father of the country", "the good", etc) at the beginning and move on. --Lecen (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; I would like to see it in the body in the section referring to the incidents which led to it being given. However, it is not important enough for me to fight over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of Mazorca

I moved the details about the meaning of the name Mazorca to the appropriate article about that organization.[16] --Lecen (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you: I didn't appreciate it existed. Ttocserp 15:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

One picture per section, to avoid piling up

Lecen - I'm certainly not interested in an edit war, but could you please let me know which WP guideline or policy limits the number of images in a section (to one)? Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Lecen, but the guidelines do say that images should not overload the text. The way the text wraps on common widescreen monitor settings, the image is forced well into the following section, and the alternative of using a template to stack the two images results instead in an ugly gap. That is a beautiful example of an exceedingly rare coin, and I agree that it would be nice to use it. I think this needs to be sandboxed to test on a wider screen at alternative placements. If it turns out the image cannot be integrated at present does not mean that it will not be useful in future (for example if a section on honors or coinage is added at some point). I'll also play with it when I have a bit of time. • Astynax talk 08:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

Since the 1930s, an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, and racist political movement in Argentina called Revisionism has tried to improve Rosas's reputation and establish a new dictatorship in the model of his regime.

WTF? LlegóelBigotee (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

THIS. What's your source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.186.39.196 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See the sources cited in the #Legacy section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

How did this article get into American English? Per this old revision it appears to have previously been in British English. MOS:RETAIN is clear that national varieties of English should not be switched without good reason. Was there one? I think there may also be an MOS:TIES argument for having this in British English. --John (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Because I wrote it, and I learned to write American English, not British American. It never crossed my mind the difference. That old version you showed has no connection at all with the present article, which was completely rewritten from scratch. --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
See WP:OWN and (again) MOS:RETAIN. --John (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to teach me anything and you should hold your tongue and be more polite. If you want British spelling, then change it accordingly and stop being a nuisance. --Lecen (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Polite? Hmm. I see I have a lot to learn from you there. Please be more careful in the future. If there are no objections I will change this back in the next 24 hours or so. --John (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Raise the article's protection

Could someone do the favor of raising the article's protection? Or else editors will have to revert vandalism every five minutes. --Lecen (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Redlinked rebellion of the North

I don't want to get into an edit war, and I see there are problems protecting this article from persistent vandalism, but instead of reverting my attempt to fix the redlink [17] and leaving no specific info to help the reader, how about instead keeping the text I added, but with the redlink? Something like this: ...and battled a major rebellion composed of the provincial governments of Tucumán, Salta, La Rioja, Catamarca, and Jujuy — led by Marco de Avellaneda. The rebellion ... Timtempleton (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to add so much information when the rebellion is described in the main text. Did you read the entire article or just the introduction? --Lecen (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I did – but it just seems strange to have a red link in the lede of a featured article without any clarification, forcing the reader to go down into the article. It's not my area of expertise in any case so I'm moving on. Timtempleton (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Unverified material and biased

This article has tons of unverified affirmations (mainly in the introductory paragraphs) and the whole article is politically biased. Bass-Kuroi (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

miastake

This short conflict ended with the defeat of Rosas and his flight to Britain. - rather not flight i think. it was XIXth century... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.107.106 (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a mistake (flight also means to flee), but I have changed the term to avoid confusion. • Astynax talk 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, and racist political movement in Argentina called Revisionism

Certain parts of this article are rather biased in favor of the Mitrist version of Argentine history – written by the economically liberal, Anglophile and/or Francophile Unitarian victors to portray themselves as harbringers of progress while renouncing our backward Spanish legacy. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I have also noted this article seem to condemd Rosas in the strongest terms. Without deeper inspection it seem to me a Hitleresque caricature. People opposing this narrative are labelled "revisionist" and conflated with far-right politics and antisemitism. The article and the edit wars held years ago here seem to have eliminated any middle ground and imposed a polarasing narrative. Dentren | Talk 11:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

What Revisionism exactly?

"Since the 1930s, an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, and racist political movement in Argentina called Revisionism has tried to improve Rosas's reputation and establish a new dictatorship in the model of his regime."

What is the source of this? Rosas' family, while catholic, were decendants of European Jewish people. And I couldn't find a single article online that praised Rosas while at the same time giving some Anti-Semitic message. Plus most of the sources I also found depicted him as being popular with former black slaves and native american tribes. -- 04:45, 1 June 2021 2803:9800:b02e:8096:b838:61c6:a8f3:53d5

The Lead section is a summary of the sourced material in an article's body, and as such does not require repeating the footnotes from the article's body. The sources you are trying to locate are provided in the "Legacy" section of the article. • Astynax talk 16:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas/Archive_2&oldid=1148747497"