Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas

[Untitled]

Who is the most knowledgeable and well known historian over this topic?

I will find out for you, since this article is terrible and in need of much work on economic/social/historic background, and made mostly on biased comments by his opponents, the "unitarios" (as Sarmiento). The power of Rosas cannot be explained solely by saying he had a lot of cattle and had a strong personality that appealed the gauchos. There are also other inaccuracies. I will list them in terrible order also, since I'm not used to work in Wikipedia and not used to your customs and rigour standards.

1.- He didn't control the whole of the pampa cattle frontier, if you consider that it was distributed in different provincies and amongst different "estancieros" or large ranch owners. 2.- Can't tell which European expeditionary forces he defeated. This is doubtful. He did battle an Anglo-French force that tried to establish free navigation of the Paranà river (and free trade), but the battery that tried to stop the ships was defeated ("Vuelta de Obligado"). When I say defeated I mean that they couldn't fulfil its objective: stopping the ships. 3.- Besides the term "nation" applied to what at that time was a confederation of provincies with loose political ties (there was not even a Constitution accepted by all), Rosas could not be defined as a "dictator" for all the provincies. It's a bit more complex. He was indeed the more powerful caudillo, but he was not the only one. He was only in charge of relationships with other countries, and had no formal power over the other provincies and caudillos -even if, informally, he was the puppet-master. To reach to that position, he had to fight unitarios and federales (his "own" "party"/or faction - even if he was not very "federal" himself), and -probably- kill other caudillos, as Facundo Quiroga. 3.- "Rosas attempted to reincorporate Uruguay and Paraguay as Argentinean provinces..." This is inaccurate. The "Pronunciamiento de Urquiza", the act by which Urquiza, Entre Rìos "caudillo", declared its intentions of owerthrowing Rosas, was triggered by other political events, but mostly by Urquiza's intention of liberating its trade with Brazil and foreign powers in certain goods for its own profit. Also, the puny "unitario" force in Montevideo could hardly represent a problem for Rosas, even if he besieged through allies and own forces the city for a long time before. There are specific economic reasons that can explain the rise and fall or Rosas ("saladero" cycle and new agricultural/pecuarian cycles rising at his fall) that can better explain this. Britain was a major player in all this period, trying to find a valuable associate in the pampas to introduce its industrial goods and buy cattle and grain, and Rosas was not the correct person for doing this at that time. 4.- "Rosas wanted to rid Argentina of European influence and cultivate a feeling of nationalism among Argentinians..." Well, in fact commerce with European powers thrived in some periods under Rosas, so we can hardly say that he wanted to "rid" Argentina of their influence. European businessmen were established in Buenos Aires and were influent during periods of Rosas government

I really need more reading on the subject, but I'll try to help with a new article for this guy, who influenced the "country"'s life for a good buch of years. FLRD

POV 2: association with present-day politics

In the section POV which I started I seem to have stumbled into a hornet's nest. What I suspect may be the case (I don't have clear information to support it, but have looked at a few references) is that being for and against Rosas has some symbolic significance related to recent Argentine politics, so that people for and against current opposing and radically polarised political views consider Rosas to be a saint or a devil, and his opponents devils or saints. So, on the one hand, I'd expect that if several people edit this article (which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment - I don't count myself as I don't have a viewpoint) there will be contention and lots of POV content until consensus is reached. Additionally, the fact that there is this association of Rosas with current factions (if true) is itself notable and has an important place in the article. I'm not in a position to help. Pol098 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what do you consider "modern". There have been such disputes in the times of Hipólito Yrigoyen first, and then again with Juan Domingo Perón and the Revolución Libertadora that deposed him (which repeated a quote from Urquiza, setting a paralelism between both cases). They are "modern" in the sense that it happen a century after Rosas, but on the other hand, they happen half a century ago. Rosas has no political significance in 2011, he's just another historical figure. Cambalachero (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert in Rosas but this book by Richards (note nr 9 from the lead) does not seem the most appropriate reference: http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TheLinkPersona.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.226.107 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Why is there a string of 10 citations in the lead paragraph? Generally we don't need any citations in the lead and leave them for the body of the article. Having a list of ten sources is not only excessive but quite distracting. 174.62.136.139 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, 1. If you want more detail, Rosas ran away at a young age and changed his name to Rosas from Rozas (this was mentioned). But did you all know he was naked when he did this? He left his parents home, leaving anything that belonged to his parents to begin a new, truly independent life, and then began to associate and gain the respect and admiration of various gaucho leaders. Also...someone should EXPLICITLY state Rosas was a cuadillo. He exemplifies caudillismo. I don't have sources right now for all this info, but it's legitimate and I'm sure someone else can search them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.0.116 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Something that must be told

I just wanted to tell that this was the most ridiculously hilarious excuse to revert someone else's edit I've seen to this day on Wikipedia. No wonder this article sucks. --Lecen (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder by what criteria it's called "iconic"? Arguably, the picture on the money would be the most "iconic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> Go and see the 20$ banknotes, the monument in Palermo, the monument in Vuelta de Obligado, the tomb in La Recoleta, the portrait at the hall of Latin American heroes at the Casa Rosada, the cover of "Todo es Historia" in the issue about Rosas, the cover of most books about Rosas... or just a basic google image search of the terms "Juan Manuel de Rosas". Everywhere it is either the portrait by Gaetano Descalzi or a derivative work of it. It is easier to invert the question: by what criteria can you deny that it is iconic? Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The current picture looks fairly much like the one on the money. The one Lecen had posted doesn't even look like the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of soruced content

I know that Cambalachero is engaged in a fierce quest to whitewash Argentine history, turning good people into bad, and bad into good. Having said, I want to make clear that I will oppose any GA or FA nomination of this article. --Lecen (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)