Talk:Eva Perón/Archive 2

Regarding removal of People's History article

In a move that I'm sure will upset someone, I have taken the liberty to remove the link to the above mentioned article. The reasons are twofold: first of all, the article is poorly written; second of all, it contains historical inaccuracies. The greatest error of the article is the accusation that Peron was an admirer of Hitler. This is not true. The author of this article doesn't seem to be a scholar in Argentine history and therefore I don't see what use this article is. There is already a link to the article by Tomas Eloy Martinez, and he covers quite explicitly the fact that Peron, though not an admirer of Hitler, helped some Nazis escape in Argentina (in hopes of receiving information about German technology), and that Peron openly admired Mussolini (not Hitler). The People's History article seems amateurishly written and in my opinion it doesn't add to the article. If someone replaces the link, I'd recommend noting that the article contains historical inaccuracies or at the very least that it contains claims that have not been verified or that remain in dispute. Andrew Parodi 12:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Gay icon category

I have included Evita in the "gay icon" category. I have read that she is very important to the gay men of Buenos Aires. And in the movie "Eva Peron: The True Story" her dressmaker says, "All the fags love you. To be a woman, to be poor, to be gay, is the same thing in this barbaric country. To be a woman, to be poor, to be gay, is to be Eva Peron." That she is a gay icon is not really arguable for most people who know anything about gay men and the types of women they make into icons. But if anyone else can help add "verification" here with regard to this topic, that would be great. Andrew Parodi 06:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of her being a gay icon, nor think she would feel comfortable with it. Mariano(t/c) 08:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There's really no way to know if she would be comfortable about being a gay icon, because "gay icons" per se didn't even exist during her time. It was inevitable that she be a gay icon. She is a diva made famous by a Broadway musical. Gay men love divas and they love Broadway musicals. Andrew Parodi 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Buy you see you are getting the musical potrayal of her and the actual historical figure getting mixed up. If this was about the character Eva Peron, then added the cat is understandable, but since this is a historical figure it is innapprioate. Maddona is the real gay icon behind the musical Evita. For those reasons I have removed the cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kralahome (talk • contribs)

Probably Gay Icons didn't exist then, but homosexuality is quite old. I said I believe she wouldn't feel comfortable being a gay icon because of my idea of her thoughts about homosexuality. Mariano(t/c) 06:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that this is a moot point by now, because apparently the category of "gay icon" no longer exists on Wikipedia. Anyway, there is a lot of information on the internet about Eva Peron as a gay icon. Here's a start: What's New, Buenos Aires? by Out Traveler -- Andrew Parodi 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Ciudad Eva Peron" vs "Ciudad Evita"

Someone linked to the "Ciudad Eva Peron" article, which redirects to La Plata. It just occurred to me, shouldn't someone start an article about "Ciudad Evita," a city that actually still exists? Andrew Parodi 06:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

neutrality disputed

First of all, an apology. My internet connection went down just after I placed the tag but before I could put in the explanation.

The article veers clumsily between an unduly hagiographic tone and a critical one. The opening paragraphs, for example, are blatently hagiographic, with criticism reduced to a paragraph at the end, only to have that paragraph end with implied criticism of that criticism. That is not neutral.

In response to this, I must say that the opening paragraphs were not hagiography; they simply referred to the hagiography others had projected onto Evita (literally, there was the reference to the vendors union petitioning the Vatican to have her declared a saint; that really happened). And you reference this paragraph:

Evita was also a highly controversial figure during her life, and she remains so to this day. Though she was a part of Argentine political life for little more than six years, during that brief time she became the center of much gossip, conjecture, and myth making. In their book Evita: The Real Life of Eva Perón, authors Marysa Navarro and Nicholas Fraser claim that the myths and distortions surrounding Eva Perón are the most complicated of any modern political figure.

That was not "criticism reduced to a paragraph at the end, only to have that paragraph end with implied criticism of that criticism," but merely an attempt by me to take the advice I was given in the peer review above; I was told to avoid single sentence and short paragraphs. At one point, the last sentence in the above paragraph was a paragraph of its own. I later decided to push the two short paragraphs together, creating the one above. I hadn't taken into account, however, that when I did this it made it appear that I was presenting criticism of the criticism. Anyway, I've gone through and edited the opening paragraphs to take out what is admittedly probably filler. It is probably a little too "in depth" for intro paragraphs to be mentioning that the union petitioned the Vatican and that she would've been the world's first female Vice President. And in all honesty, I didn't mention any of that in an attempt to create hagiography, but simply to add detail to what was previously a rather detail-less article. Andrew Parodi 05:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It comes with the territory when this is tinted with cultish rather than historic facts. Cf other icons related, in context, to Santa Evita: San Juan Perón and San Augusto Pinochet. 69.9.31.153 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Claims are made that have no citations. Some things cited are quite frankly worthless in terms of encyclopaedias. (A documentary on love??Those sort of documentaries rely excessively on hyperbole and are usually littered with inaccuracies. Documentaries usually have to make wild generalisations that are rarely accurate. There are many women of the period who were described as the most powerful woman in the world. Eva was just one. Many would argue that Sr Pasquelina, Pope Pius XII's housekeeper and confidenté — and rumoured mistress — was more influential. When Pius's health declined, she practically ran the Church, doing things in his name, choosing cardinals and bishops, etc. She was so powerful her enemies called her La Papessa — the she-pope. —. She certainly had far more real power than Eva on a world stage.)

(Note: The documentary about love is not about "love" per se. It is rather about women who have been "loved" by the public: Princess Diana, Elizabeth Taylor, etc. If other women of the period have been described as being the most powerful women of their time, then why not incorporate such women into a statement that reads something like: "Along with (these other women), Evita has been credited as the most powerful woman of her time." Andrew Parodi 02:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

The article is good overall, but a poor writing style undermines its neutrality. It needs fixing to bring it up to encyclopaedia standard. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 16:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)}

You can't really say that the article is not neutral when it quotes sources. Just about every statement is sourced. You can, however, say that you don't like the sources. Which you have done with the documentary, for example. But there is a difference between saying that a statement isn't sourced, and that you don't like the cited source. Whether you like the documentary or not does not change the fact that that statement IS made in the documentary. It is made in several other places as well. At the moment, the documentary is the only source I can think of.

I wish more people on Wikipedia would follow the Wikipedia rule of assuming good faith. When I first found this article it was but a stub. My only intention has been to fill it out a little bit and get it going, in hopes that others would pick it up and get the article going. Evita is a major figure in world history; or at least in South American history, and women's history. I thought the topic deserved a better article than what was there at the time.

And to the idea that this page is "cultish" and biased (hard to take that accusation too seriously, as it comes from an anonymous person, but I'll set that aside), please take a look at the top of the page and see that I requested a peer review a while ago to get input from others on how to improve the article. I have taken many suggestions into account and implemented them into the article. I hardly think an article can have a "cultish" tone to it when I have requested that others give their feedback and suggestions on it. My understanding of "cultish" is that it is closed and not up for debate.

I think that the fact of the matter is that Evita is a very hated woman by some people; those who hate her (particularly the native Argentines) come here and read about some of the good things she did, and some of the positive aspects, and think this is "cultish" and hagiography. It isn't hagiography, but the presentation of the opinions of scholars. It's just that for the anti-Peronists the presentation of the positive aspects of Evita seem like "hagiography" because they often think that Evita was a completely polarized, evil woman. -- Andrew Parodi 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: As to the idea that the article is one sided, hagiography, and cultish, I suppose you all missed the part of the article where I included the frightening aspects of Evita creating a personality cult around Juan Peron and that opposition to Peronism was almost impossible. It appears to me that in this case when someone says the article is "hagiography," what they really mean is that they want to come here and read a list of all the negative things about Evita and Peronism. But that isn't neutral either. Andrew Parodi 01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been hinted already (see "tortures" section and others in this and Juan Perón's article discussion) that the survivors from those times don't feel confident in revealing their names when advancing criticism. Why? Because we sailed through the delations of the building and block "observers" who reported what they thought we were thinking, up their chain of command. Why did she "die" at 8:25? Because it made it easier to freeze everybody, during months of mourning, between 8:25 and 8:30. For example if in a library, we couldn't go to the restroom because attempting it meant being reported by the librarian up to the party chain of "chiefs". BTW they also "observed" who wore or not a mourning black necktie or arm patch. BTW notice that the reference to "nudity" was not to the one you assumed, but the "Emperor Clothes" type. And also notice that should we be in those times and spaces, the Wikipedia would have to be renamed to Wiki-Eva-Pedia, all these topics of discussion would be censored out, and we would be in a "gulag"... 69.9.31.153 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are many books written about torture in Argentina during Peron's era and after. (In fact, I just added a link to the A&E biography on Evita. This biography contains an interview with a man, who, unlike you, reveals his name and face, and who claims that he was tortured by the Peron regime.

It does NOT mention that. Here is the page you link to:

First of all, I think you've committed copyright violation by copying and pasting copyrighted material from one website to another. Second of all, what you have copied and pasted is in fact the description of an A&E television program. The description of the program contains no reference to the interview with the man who was tortured (that would be far too in-depth for a mere description of the video), but the video program itself [1] most certainly does contain the interview with the man who says he was was tortured. Andrew Parodi 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the man is, I believe, a famous writer in Argentina, though his name escapes me at the moment.) I don't know where you get the idea that people haven't spoken out about this. And I don't understand how the rest of what you say pertains to the editing of this article. If you want to insert the reference to it being mandatory for certain public officials to wear the black band after her death, then do so.

Thank you, though, for demonstrating to this forum exactly what I said below: that when it comes to Evita, neutrality is very difficult. You obviously have an axe to grind. Just about all literature on Evita is written in such a polarized fashion: either there is an axe to grind, or people are worshipping her. It's mostly all within the context of over-the-top emotions. Andrew Parodi 09:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Evita and neutrality

Something very ironic just occurred to me: slapping an article about Evita with a "not neutral" label is pretty redundant. I suppose the "uninitiated" do not realize just how polarized her portayal is, and that save for a hand full of very few biographies (most of them being biographies of Juan Peron that only mention Evita in passing), just about everything that is written about Evita is very biased.

In "Evita-ology" this is referred to as the juxtaposition of "The White Myth" and "The Black Myth." Supporters of Evita in her day, and some even to this very day, view her (sometimes literally) as akin to The Virgin Mary ("The White Myth"). Those who oppose her viewed her in her day, and some even to this day, as an incarnation of classlessness, selfishness, naked ambition, and just plain evil ("The Black Myth"). From what I have found, there is only about one biography about Evita herself that is truly neutral, well written, and trustworthy, and that book is "Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron" -- which is why it is a primary reference on this page. In the introduction of that book, the authors say that many believe that Evita is so buried under so much myth that retrieving her real story is impossible.

I suppose what I'm trying to say here, folks, is, um, cut me a little slack ... and cut everyone else who works on this page a little slack. Though Wikipedia strives for neutrality, in the case of Eva Peron we are dealing an icon/persona that was almost purposefully created to make neutrality impossible. If the page seems at all non-neutral, that is not solely the fault of the writer(s) (mostly me), but largely the fault of the topic itself.

Maybe there should be a subsection devoted to discussion of "The White Myth" and "The Black Myth."

Also, if some of the statements I have made on this page are not cited, it is because I have been reading about Evita since 1991 (when I was 16), back before there was such a thing as the Internet. I wasn't reading with the intention of writing an article or report about her, but because she fascinated me. Therefore, by the time I came to this page, I was a virtual scholar in Evita history, though hardly a scholar in writing Wikipedia articles. This is why this page appears to, as one person said it, veer between being well written and sounding biased. Knowledge about Evita's life is just second nature to me at this point (dare I say I know more about her than most Argentines; yes, I dare say it); on the other hand, I'm a real beginner with writing Wikipedia articles.

Oh, by the way, I can cite the statement about me knowing more about Eva Peron than most Argentines. The Head Mistress of St. Joseph's school in San Isidro, Buenos Aires told me so. I was an exchange student to Argentina in 1993. I lived with the family of Jorge Di Fiori [2][3], who was the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Argentina. His family lived in San Isidro, and I attended school with his son, Nicolas Di Fiori. During class one day, one of their teachers, a Senor Caballo, found out that I knew a lot about Evita. We had a history quiz about her that day, and he couldn't believe how much I knew about her. He left the class visibly shaken; he's the one who later told the head mistress how much I knew about Evita. (Here is a picture of me in front of Evita's tomb in 1993. Here is a picture of the Di Fiori family at the dinner table, which I took on my last night in Argentina. And here, oddly, is a picture I took of Liza Minnelli in front of Evita's tomb, summer of 1993. The bundle of flowers in Liza's hands were for Evita. I asked Liza if she likes Evita, and she said yes. Liza asked me how many people were in the Duarte tomb.) Andrew Parodi 04:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's why it's so dependent on Evita: The Real Life of Eva Perón by Marysa Navarro and Nicholas Fraser. Until you get to posthumous stuff it seems almost totally dependent on it in fact. Is there really nothing else reliable on this woman?--T. Anthony 11:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the biography by Navarro and Fraser is about the only trustworthy biography on Evita herself. There are trustworthy biographies of Juan Peron that contain sections on Evita. But the only full length biography on Evita that I'd recommend is "Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron." The biography by Dujovenes is pretty good, but the language is very flowery and it is not scholarly. This is one of the reasons Evita has been the subject of so much myth, because most of the biographies of her are not trustworthy. For being one of the most important figures in Argentine history, she's not really a very well studied woman. In fact, most Argentines don't know much about her at all. Andrew Parodi 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

About sources

I forgot to mention, if some of the statements in this article are without sources, in some cases that is because the sources have been removed by others. Seriously. Some people have intentionally come into this article and removed the sources of statements. I don't know why. (There have been other odd things going on with this article. Did anyone see that nonsense someone inserted into the section about "Evita as popular culture icon"? It was a rambling account of some ficticious people working with Cinergi pictures to get "Evita" made.) Andrew Parodi 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maiden name

The article first refers to her as "María Eva Duarte," then begins a paragraph with "Eva María Duarte..." Which version is correct?

Also, this statement: "On her marriage license, she stated her maiden name as María Eva Duarte, so it would appear that she had her father's last name; she also put that she was several years younger, and had her birth certificate altered" is confusing. What was the name on her birth certificate? Was Eva supposed to go by her mother's name, or some other nomenclature indicating that she was illegitimate? If so, that name should be added to the article -- right now the only (birth) surname mentioned is Duarte. --Marysunshine 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what was meant, but Eva was daughter of Juana Ibarguren and Juan Duarte. Her parents weren't married, and normally a bastard child takes the surname of her mother. God only knows what her birth certificate says, or when it began saying it.... - Nunh-huh 03:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure her birth certificate read "Ibarguren." But Dona Juana always used the last name "Duarte," even though she didn't marry the children's father. By the time Evita landed in Buenos Aires at age 15, she was Eva Duarte -- even though that name didn't correspond with the birth certificate. My understanding is that when she had the birth certificate altered, some time early in Peron's presidency, she had it changed to read "Duarte," to have it appear that her parents were married when she was born, and also to make herself three years younger. I have read newspaper clippings from the time of her death that identify her as 30, though she was actually 33 at the time.

Oh, and to my understanding, her full name was Maria Eva Duarte de Peron. Maria comes first. Someone who referred to her as Eva Maria is probably confusing that name with "Ave Maria," that Catholic prayer. Andrew Parodi 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

She received great adulation from the...

From everybody. Otherwise you couldn't

• count on graduating from school,
• obtain employment,
• get retirement benefits,
• stay out of the "gulag",
• etc

69.9.31.153 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I get it. You're anti-Peronist, or just don't like her. But what you say is historically inaccurate. Many people didn't like her and didn't offer her their support. Why do you think she didn't run for Vice President? There is evidence that the military threatened Peron that they would overthrow the government if she were elected Vice President of Argentina. As I mention above, I was an exchange student to Argentina. My host father was anti-Peronist and he told me that his family celebrated when she died. That doesn't sound like "support" to me. -- Andrew Parodi 09:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed "neutrality/npov" tag

I took the liberty of removing the neutrality tag because all of the concerns cited in the placement of the tag have since been dealt with. I have deleted the references that caused complaints, such as the reference to her being suggested for sainthood, the reference to the documentary on love, etc. Andrew Parodi 01:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Things that are common knowledge don't need citation

In my college class on research papers, we're reading the text called "The Curious Researcher" by Bruce Ballenger. In this text, the author says that things that are common knowledge do not need citation.

As I look over this page about Evita, I am reminded of the fact that someone had some histrionics about the term "affectionate diminutive." The article read, "Eva Peron was referred to by the affectionate diminutive 'Evita'." Someone got all bent out of shape about that word "affectionate," saying that that was biased and no source. But it is commonly known that her followers referred to her as "Evita" in an affectionate way, and that those who did not like her did not have affection for her and did not refer to her as "Evita".

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this article is sort of being limited in scope by the idea that just about every statement made has to be sourced. There is so much about Evita that is already common knowledge that to suggest someone do searches for sources on statements is often a waste of time. The alternative is that people won't do anything, just leave the article sit there, which is what had happened for quite a while....

I had always understood this to be the case: anything that is common knowledge doesn't need to be sourced. I suppose the other thing that I'm getting at is that when one references the bias of another (certainly it was biased that some felt affectionate towards her), that reference should not be taken as indication of agreement with the bias. It's just stating a fact.

I think the fact that "Evita" was an affectionate diminutive is an important fact in her life, but I am fearful that if I put it back in the article then someone is going to complain that it's biased on my side. All the while, it is common knowledge that "Evita" is the affectionate diminutive.

Also, I just added this closing paragraph to the intro paragraphs:

"Today, Eva Perón is perhaps best known to the world as the subject of the Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice musical Evita, which was later adapted as a movie starring Madonna."

I was almost afraid to add this paragraph because I can just see someone waiting in the wings to come out and say that I am biased in saying this, that this is "POV" on my part and that I don't have a source. Well, on one hand this is absolutely true. I did not in fact do a search of any kind before I wrote the above paragraph. The reason I didn't do a search for a quote or citation is because I don't feel I need one. I think it is common knowledge that she is most famous for being the subject of the musical. I would be surprised if more than 10% of those who read this article knew about her before they heard of the musical. Even Madonna herself said she had never heard of Evita before the musical. And yet I'm sure that at some point down the line someone is going to have some trouble with the above paragraph. Sorry. Guilty as charged. I don't have a source or citation for the above paragraph, and I'm not going to waste my time searching for one. What I state is common knowledge. Andrew Parodi 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Section: "The serendipitious pitch that led to the making of the film"

Yesterday, 207.200.116.132 added the following section, giving it the title ""The serendipitious pitch that led to the making of the film"

"Budding film producer, Jillian L'Amour, casually brought up the subject of Madonna doing Evita to Michael Sloan over lunch at MGM in 1995. L'Amour was introduced to Sloan, then a top executive at Cinergi, through a co-worker of hers at MGM. As the three of them had lunch that day L'Amour, made an off-hand comment arising from L'Amour's long admiration for Eva Peron's work and Madonna's business acumen. Her respect for both successful women led to the melding of the idea which she voiced to Sloan who then spearheaded the project at Cinergi."

This section had been a part of the article before, but it had been combined in the movie section. It was pretty apparent then that it is a spoof section. As it was originally written, this section descended into some bizarre talk about someone being inspired by Eva Peron to make a movie about her and to become a cook, or some such nonsense.

I did a search, and found no reference to a Jillian L'Amour or Michael Sloan, and I removed it. Then, just yesterday, the above section reappears.

Anyway, my request is for others to keep an eye on this section. I have a feeling it's going to reappear at some point. If it does, please delete it ... or do your own search to see if you find any support for this stuff. I am pretty sure that it's nonsense, and even if it is true, it doesn't belong on this page but on the Evita (movie) page. -- Andrew Parodi 05:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The musical....

This is the biography. Please consolidate all references to the musical to one section and keep it small. -- 75.24.109.108 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The musical is significant, as it is the reason so many people actually know who she was. I understand your thoughts in regards to such comments not being posted here, but the talk page is here for people to gather data/discuss inclusions, and such does have relevance. Were it the article that would be a different story... Michael 07:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus musical has is own article. It is free, based on the whims of producers and directors, to take dramtic license and be, at times, fiction. It is fine to refer to it here but please leave it at that. This is the biography where the prose should focus on the historical Truth. -- 67.119.192.169 08:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The necrophilia

Look, this supposed necrophilia: if we have to mention it at all, then let us please get some specifics. How many men were invovled? Do we have any names? Did they undress? Did they have erections? Penile penetration of some sort? Ejaculation? Huh? What happened? Did they say "they could have..." but did not actually do so? What are the facts? So why are we mentioning this otherwise non-notable item at all? -- 67.119.192.169 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As was previously stated by another user, such did occur, and I'm sorry that we don't have the exact number, but the necrophilia is worth mention if you mention what happened to her body and go as far as to mention the hammer being taken to her cheek. This is just as relevant. Michael 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If some roto-tiller did the necrophilia, then I would expect additional damage to the body. As it is, the "effect" of the necrophilia on the body was never so noticeable that it was known about until much later. The necrophilia hardly effected the body at all, unless semen was deposited, and then only because it could mess up a DNA test. My opinion: the necrophilia is mostly in the mind of the necrophiliac. Where does this lead to? Are we going to say next that Eva was raped and further violated? I think that the necrophilia is just tossed in for titilation. Sigh. Fine. Just please, from here on out: focus on the mind of the subject while they were alive. That is what the reader really wants to know about. She did not write any books so just try to get the facts about the life. The body is like, blech... big deal. -- 67.119.192.169 09:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Evita's death is one of the reasons she is so famous as are many of the events following her life. Likewise, the hammer to the face may have been in the mind of the smasher if you go under the mindset the the necrophilia is in the mind of the necrophiliac. Michael 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The alleged necrophilia is recorded as having take place on a copy of the corpse, not the original, in the pseudo-factual novel Santa Evita by Tomas Eloy Martinez. It was perpetrated by one officer. User:Gboleyn

From 1955 until 1971, the military dictatorship of Argentina

This is an obviously incorrect statement. How can we trust that the other sections of the article dealing with less public-record events have been better verified? --69.9.26.177 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is made up of different editors who have different expertise and knowledge of events. Where the knowledge of one editor fails, another editor steps in and provides his/her knowledge. Perhaps you could do that with this aspect of her life.

A way to be able to trust statements made here is that they should be verified. 207.200.116.200 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Potential Good Article

This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale and is a likely Top Importance article at WikiProject Argentina. But as far as I can see it has not formally been through Good Article Review. It seems to have a good referencing system and illustration, although I am concerned there may be some POV issues and editors will have to relax their sense of ownership of the article.

I don't feel qualified myself to steer this through GA peer review and haven't contributed to the article. Could someone brave the rigours of that process and get this to Good Article status? I'm happy to help where I can. Martín (saying/doing) 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While I didn't write it, this article is WP:GA type, and could be worked to WP:FA with extra refs. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of fascist and Nazi sympathizing

So now we have some TV show "accuse" Eva Perón "of being one of the most responsible persons in the world for allowing... blah blah blah". The web link does not seem to mention her by name in its blurb about that TV episode, so that makes it difficult to determine if the case is being presented either too strongly or still yet too weakly. Do we have anything else in writing about this TV episode? Does the TV merely "suggest" this about Eva or does it "provide clear proof" or what? Now the video blub, after spending most of its time "setting the scene" and telling us things we already know, states:

It is rumoured that they escaped aboard U-boats in the last days of the Third Riech. But recent revelations tell a far more sinister story.

and the text says:

This program reveals how known killers were secreted down 'ratlines' through Europe, until they reached comparative safety in South America, where they could use their deadly training to support the militaristic regimes.

Uh, to my mind, that is not satifactory to support the current text about Perón. Any other references to these "recent revelations?" -- 75.24.105.100 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can get a copy of the video yourself from THE HISTORY CHANNEL or perhaps even your local library; watch it. It specifically says that Eva was one of the most responsible persons in the world for allowing Nazis to escape Germany. Just because the information isn't published on some Blog indexed by Google doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in the article. We can properly use TV shows, videos, books, and magazines as sources. It is easily verifiable. Whether or not Eva is actually responsible isn't an issue that editors get to determine. We are here to present information that is verifiable. The History Channel says Eva is responsible and that is a verifiable claim. If others disagree with that claim, then those people can also be cited. I'm sure you think you own the "Truth" about Eva, but the fact of the matter is that people disagree about this issue and evidence from both sides of the issue need to be included to meet the standards of WP:NPOV. Vivaldi (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the documentary you refer to. It contains flimsy citations at best. The citations in the section on Nazi allegations in this article are far more sound. Andrew Parodi 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the History Channel did produce a story saying this. It isn't up to you or other editors to determine the "Truth". The standand for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. The claim is that the History Channel documentary accuses Eva of being responsible for many Nazis escaping prosecution. That is a verifiable statement and it should be included at least to demonstrate that there is some dispute over these allegations. Vivaldi (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then include reference to the documentary. I don't think the documentary was produced by the History Channel.

I'm not saying you can't include it. That's not my decision. And besides I've already included that many have accused her of this. All I'm saying is that there is a big difference between scholars and made-for-History-Channel documentaries. I don't know if you've noticed it or not, but History Channel is often very biased and flimsy. If the documentary you refer to is the one I remember, then it provided absolutely NO evidence of Eva Peron being involved. It simply said, "She was involved.... etc." And then showed a picture of her. That's all. But include it if you want. The only thing I'm really concerned about is that the inclusion be well written. Andrew Parodi 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of first name in article

Just wondering if there was a conscious decision or consensus reached about the use of her first name through the article?

It's always been my understanding that entries should refer to the person by their last name. There's a valid argument for NOT using it - since "Peron" could mean her husband - but just wondering if this was ever debated or discussed. NickBurns 14:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issue has ever been raised. I think I am responsible for perhaps as much as 80% of this article's content, and the reason I have used the term "Evita" or "Eva" throughout is because in discussion of Argentine politics it is commonly understood that when you say only "Peron," you are referring to Juan Peron.

For analogy, how often have you read an article about Laura Bush that refers to her simply as "Bush"? I've never read that. When you say only "Bush," such as, "Bush visited the school today," people assume you're talking about George Bush. Laura Bush is either referred to as "Laura Bush" or "Mrs. Bush." So, the only alternative to using "Evita" and "Eva" throughout would seem to be to refer to her as "Mrs. Peron." That doesn't sound right to me either.

Isn't it standard Wikipedia rule to refer to the person by the name they are most commonly known by? If that's the case, she should probably be referred to as "Evita" more often than anything else. Andrew Parodi 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed picture

I hope no one will mind, but I changed the top picture. I was the one who uploaded the Time magazine picture. I did so because I wanted to emphasize that Evita had been acknowledged in US politics before the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. But that image of Evita on the cover of time magazine is far from an "iconic" image of Evita. Most likely, what one wants at the top of an article is the most iconic image possible. Look at the Che Guevara article. I can't think of a more iconic image of Evita than of her speaking from the balcony of the Casa Rosada. Andrew Parodi 14:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I just introduced a trivia section. I think it's worth mentioning that David Keirsey believes Eva Peron and Madonna are the same personality type. I'm hoping I won't regret starting this trivia section, because I'm afraid it's going to become unmanageable at some point because people will begin adding all sorts of things.

My goal here is to bring this article up to the "Good Article" status. I was wondering if perhaps it's best to not have a trivia section then. What do the rest of you think? Do Good Articles, and Featured Articles, have typically have trivia sections? Andrew Parodi 11:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanding article (again)

There's been talk about pushing this article to the standard of a "good article." I've been hoping others would help with this, but so far it looks as though I myself am the only one really working at it on a daily basis.

I just wanted to give a heads-up of my method here. As I've noted above, creating an article about Eva Peron that will be received as "neutral" is very challenging. My method at this point is to make almost every major statement a direct reference to a biography of Evita, or her own autobiography. At the moment, I am primarily concerned with what I consider to be THE best Eva Peron biograph: "Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron." I am going through the article and structuring the article in accordance to the information in this book. Later, I will go through the article with another book, and then another, and another.

So, if it looks as though the article at this point is heavily influenced by that one particular book, just be patient and I will go through and add information from other books as well. Also, if anyone likes, feel free to pitch in. My only concern here is attempting to create a good article about Evita. Andrew Parodi 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick question, appears to be a date conflict surrounding her death... Juan found out about her cancer in Sept 1952 and she died July 1952? Someone with more access to info needs to tighten that up a little. 65.185.95.121 23:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. Obviously, that's incorrect. I think it was my own typo. Obviously, he found out in 1951. I think someone else already corrected this. Andrew Parodi 07:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

wedding date: October 21st or 22nd ?

copied from Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/October 21.

Hope some admin has this on the watch list ... Apparently Evita's and Juan Perron's marriage took plave on oct, 22, not 21 - see as the most reliable looking site I found on this <sheesh it's a blocked site> evita<dot>4mg<dot>com/CapI<dot>html (in Spanish, but search 22 de octubre de 1945 there). On German selected anniversaries I've chosen Megamouth Shark#6 instead see [4] for further information) cheers --de:Benutzer:Interpretix 01:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope someone more familiar with the Peróns than me can get this clarified. Thanks. -- PFHLai 17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Crassweller writes in "Peron and the Enigmas of Argentina"

"The ceremony was celebrated on October 23 at the Posadas Street apartment, sheltered by the kind of privacy that usually attends a conspiracy." (Page 171) Andrew Parodi 04:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew Parodi. Maybe it was a 3-day celebration ? I'm confused...... -- PFHLai 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly, the date of their marriage is not a well know date. I don't think the date is even listed in the primary Eva Peron biography, "Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron." This is probably because it was not a large celebration, like the other Peronist days. Like the biography says, it was a quiet ceremony. The 17th of October, the day of Evita's death, is more important to Peronist politics than the day they actually got married. Another reason is probably that for some of the more conservative Peronists it's a tender issue to confront the fact that they were living together before they had been married. Andrew Parodi 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The 17th of October, the day of Evita's death ??? Yes, it's a very important date but not the day she died.

Jclerman 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my sloppy grammar. There should've been an "and" in there, reading: "The 17th of October, and the day of Evita's death (July 26, 1952), is more important to Peronist politics than the day they actually got married." I didn't mean to imply that Evita died on the 17th of October, though such an occurance would've had tremendous potential for Peronist propaganda. I wrote the above paragraph in a hurry and didn't proof read it before I sent it off. Andrew Parodi 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please start using the "show preview" button in the future. That could have been a very nasty error if it wasn't caught. If you are in such a hurry you should wait until you have time to be productive and less error prone. Foolscape 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which would certainly distinguish me from other Wikipedians and writers in general who certainly never commit any typos, improper grammar, incorrect punctuation, or misplaced modifiers. Why, it's a wonder we even have names for these punctuation, spelling, and grammar errors as no one but myself ever commits them.

Please note that the error was made above on this discussion page and not on the main article itself, therefore any residual impact of my small error would've been highly trivial at best. Thank you. Andrew Parodi 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything about Eva Peron is shrouded in myth including, it seems, the date of her wedding to Juan Peron. There is much disagreement. I am curious as to where the author found the date of 23 October, as I have never seen that listed before. Here are some other sources that list the date of their wedding.

-John Barnes' Evita, First Lady cites the date as 18 October, according to a Buenos Aires newpaper article he quotes on page 51 of his book.

-Eva Peron herself does not list the date in her book, My Mission in Life.

-The Wikipedia article on Juan Peron lists the date as 21 October.

-The Official Eva Peron Historical Research Foundation <http://www.evitaperon.org> lists the date of the civil ceremony as 22 October and the religious ceremony as 10 December, 1945.

There lies the trouble. Perhaps the point should be made in the article that the official date of Eva and Juan's wedding is a contested issue, and the Juan Peron article should also be changed to reflect as much. That way people reading the article understand that the date of their wedding is not universally agreed upon, instead of one date being listed and declared the official by the author. I think that is very misleading and should be changed so the article is more correct. (-Kathryn) 24.159.213.118 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the comments. I'll insert this, in case no one else has already. Andrew Parodi 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Jclerman new additions

Jclerman,

Thank you for including the link to the interesting Time magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,857294,00.html

I have taken the liberty to edit the section a bit and condense the references. It appears to me that you simply copied and pasted the information from this article, though it was not initially clear that you did so. As the opinion expressed on this Time magazine article is indicative of a non-neutral point of view I think that if it is to be included in this article then it should be included in block quotes with quotation marks very clearly indicating that this is the opinion of the person who wrote the article, not the opinion of the Wikipedia editors. If you feel that the information in this Time magazine article must be included in the Wikipedia article and would prefer it not be in quotation marks, please paraphrase and make sure it is clear that this is the opinion of the article and not the opinion of Wikipedia editors.

Thank you,

Andrew Parodi 05:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

About my most recent revision.... The first thing I should note is that I am assuming you speak English as a second language. I assume this because you continue to revert the sentence to read "Evita's time of death was...." To a native English speaker this sounds awkward. It seems to imply that she owned the time of 8:25pm. Because no one can really own a time period, this doesn't really make much sense. To the native English speaker it is much more polished to write, "The time of Evita's death was...." Please stop reverting this.

Thank you for including parenthesis around the quotes from the Time magazine article. However, I think that it would be better to incorporate that section into a larger context. For example, perhaps if you like you could create a paragraph or subsection about criticism about the extent of the mourning of her death, or pressure from the government to observe Evita's death, etc. But to just insert a block quote like that into the middle of the section without any real analysis of the block quote, and without juxtaposing it with other criticisms of the extent of the mourning, seems awkward.

For example, I recall reading a piece that Borges wrote about the mourning; he referred to the "crass mythology" of Peronism which was "played for the lower classes." It would be interesting to see these quotes put together with Borges' thoughts, etc. Does this make any sense?

I won't revert this again tonight. But if you don't decide to put that quote into a broader context, I may be back in a few days to do just that. I am interested in working with this section, particularly because, in my opinion, her death and the mourning of her death is perhaps the most important piece of Evita mythology. (In fact, working on this section of her life is a bit overwhelming.) So, I appreciate that you have found this interesting article. I think it just needs to be inserted in a more polished way.

Thanks,

Andrew Parodi 07:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

time of death

This is the expression used in forensics by native English writers. Jclerman 08:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't intended for readership by forensic chemists. This is an encyclopedia for general readership and should therefore adhere to the standards of encyclopedic language. Andrew Parodi 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evita's time

This expression was used in extensive revisions of the article, made in early October by somebody else, not by me. It said since then [italics added]:

"...It is my sad duty to inform you that at 8:25 p.m. Eva Perón, Spiritual Leader of the Nation, entered immortality".[42] Evita's time of her death was announced as 8:25 because..."

Jclerman 08:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize that you aren't the one who originated the phrase "Evita's time of death..." I realize it was someone else. Originally, it read, "Evita's time of her death," which made it clear to me that most likely this edit was made by someone who spoke English as a second language, most likely a native Argentine, as there are many Argentines apparently who keep an eye on this page. I believe that if this phrase ("Evita's time of her death") is literally translated back into Castellaño then it will make sense. But directly translated from Castellaño into English, it doesn't. I have repeatedly edited the phrase to remove the unnecessary "her," as well as to change the phrase from "Evita's time of death" to "The time of Evita's death." It is repeatedly edited back for some unknown reason.

"Evita's time of death" may be a phrase that would be used by forensics, but I highly doubt that forensics would say "Evita's time of her death." Because that is how the phrase originally appeared (with the unnecessary "her"), I can only assume that the phrase was inserted by someone based on their lack of understanding of common English language usage, rather than in an attempt to adhere to standard forensic English language usage. Therefore, I think the entire phrase needs to be edited. To the ears of most native English speakers I believe it makes more sense to say, "The time of Evita's death was...." Andrew Parodi 21:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Parenthesis

If you mean parentheses (because a pair of parenthesis) is needed to enclose text, they are not appropriate in the context discussed because within parentheses one writes text that can be excluded. Quotation marks is what's appropriate for quoted text. Jclerman 08:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The way you have inserted the section from the Time magazine article makes it appear that this is the opinion of the editors of Wikipedia. It makes it appear that Wikipedia endorses what Time magazine wrote back in 1952 shortly after Evita's death. What I am saying is that something needs to be done to make it clear that what you have presented is the opinion of the writer of the Time magazine article, not the opinion of editors of Wikipedia. Andrew Parodi 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

POVs vs facts

I think you mean Borges. His are comments, opinions, criticism, etc., i.e. POVs. On the contrary, the listing from the Times article consists of facts. Jclerman 08:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant Borges, which is why I corrected my previously erroneous spelling of his last name. Thank you for pointing that out.

The Time magazine article you quote from presents facts combined with POV interpretations of events. This is why it must be made clear that this section is a direct quotation of the article.

Even when inserting historical facts into articles one must cite them properly. Andrew Parodi 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

cronies

Who are the pals (i.e. long standing friends) of public figures is frequently an observable fact, not a POV. From M-W Online:

Main Entry: cro·ny

Pronunciation: 'krO-nE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural cronies

Etymology: perhaps from Greek chronios long-lasting, from chronos time

a close friend especially of long standing : PAL

Jclerman 08:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the astute etymological interpretation.

Perhaps because you are not a native English speaker you do not realize that the term "crony," at least within common American English language usage, contains a negative connotation. In the United States when you say someone is a "crony" of a given person, you are saying, "That man is a partner in crime with that man." Because this article you reference, Time magazine, is an American publication (I don't believe there was an internation edition of Time magazine back in 1952) it stands to reason that this is meaning the writer was going for. Further, the term "crony" is highly colloquial in the United States and to use it to refer to the governmental officials of a foreign head of state could only be seen as an insult. For analogy, the only people in the United States who would refer to "George W Bush" and his cronies would be people who opposed Bush.

Please consult the Wikipedia article on Cronyism containing the following description:

"Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to public office without regard for their qualifications. In political terms, the word "cronyism" is almost always used derogatorily."

Again, I'm not saying I want the word "crony" removed from the article, but that it must be made clear that this POV interpretation of Time magazine from 1952 is their opinion and not the opinion of the Wikipedia article. Andrew Parodi 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Renouncement, cervical cancer and her death

I thought the information on her cancer, being limited to the section "Death" not only was abrupt but also out of sync in terms of chronology. The end of the segment on the Renouncement briefly mentioned her declining health, but by this time, she was very sick. I expanded this section, bringing the events of her health in sync with the chronology of her VP candidacy. This also gives more credance to the declining health as an alternative to the hypothesis espoused by biographers (that she was pressured to give up her candidacy).

Matthew 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)