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

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)

He didn't fight the British. He was an ammunition boy. He also didn't fight with the Migueletes. He was part of that cavalry corps but was sick during the entire conflict. Anyone who had actually read a single biography of Rosas would have known that. But someone who uses a website as source... I wonder if you will include Rosas' monarchism too. Because he was a monarchist and his daughter was acclaimed his heiress. Not only that but he wanted to annex Uruguay and Paraguay and create an Empire in the Plata. What about the fact that he opposed the "May Revolution"? Will that be mentioned too? Whitewashing, whitewashing... --Lecen (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard

A thread regarding this article's lack of neutrality and wrong view of historical facts has been opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. The link is here. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article

I created this thread with the purpose of reviewing the article and reveal all serious issues in it.

Sources

The best source in English about the life of Juan Manuel de Rosas is John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. This is the second edition of his biography and it was published in 2001. The first edition is called Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas and was published in 1981. It is regarded as the "definitive" biography of Rosas by Encyclopædia Britannica.[1] Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[2] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[3] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[4]

No matter what edition you look after, both are universally used as main sources regarding Rosas in English-written books.

We do not need to stick to sources written in English when they are outdated merely because they are in English. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. The historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention. Cambalachero (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dictatorship

According to Cambalachero (also known as MBelgrano), the main contributor in this article, (see article's lead) "Argentine historians of the XIX century, such as Bartolomé Mitre, aligned with the Unitarian party, considered him a ruthless dictator" while "New historians of the XX century, such as José María Rosa, consider him instead a defender of national sovereignty". And he concludes: "historiographical dispute about Rosas is currently considered to be over, and most modern historians do not engage in it". In other words: only historians connected to Rosas' opposition regarded him a dictator, and that only in the 19th century. Since the 20th century he is no longer regarded a dictator and there is no doubt or dispute about it any longer. Wrong.

Every single work in English regards him a dictator. From Britannica ("...who was governor (1835–52) of Buenos Aires with dictatorial powers") to Lynch's Argentine Caudillo[5] and several other works which were conveniently removed by Cambalachero from this article.[6]

Even Rosas saw himself as a dictator. The title he gave for himself was "Tirano ungido por Dios para salvar a la patria" ("Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland").[7][8] He said once: "I have always admired autocratic dictators who have been the first servants of their people. That is my great title: I have always sought to serve the contry". (Lynch, 2001, p.163) He regarded the dictatorship as best form of government: "For me the ideal of good government would be paternal autocracy, intelligent, desinterested and indefatigable..." (Lynch, 2001, p.75) A passage of Lynch's books is revealing: "In short, Rosas ws an absolute ruler. 'As he told himself', remarked the British minister Southern, 'he wields a power more absolute than any monarch on his throne.'" (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

It is not me who says that the dispute is over: it is the references, left at the respective section. Horacio González is more than just a simple author of the lot, he is the president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic. If he says that there was a paradigm shift in the way Rosas is considered, it is a voice to be heard. The current consensus means that modern historians do not explain the actions of Rosas based on personal impulses (such as evil, greed, hunger for power; or patriotism, loyalty), but on actual poltical contexts of the time. The Great Man theory is rapidly getting outdated everywhere, and it already did for Rosas in Argentina. The old manichaeisms are outdated. There may be an occational exception, but the body of the Argentine historians have left that stage long ago.

Are there books that use the word "dictator" to talk about Rosas? Perhaps. We shouldn't use a word merely because the usage is verifiable: we also have a rule to avoid Words that may introduce bias. If there is a dispute, we describe the dispute, we do not engage in it. Note as well that sources that make a mere use of a word in passing, without explaining the usage, do not count as "engaging" in the dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Elected governor or dictator?

This article, as written by Cambalachero, presents the idea that was en elected governor and that he was granted the "Sum of public power" (that is, the power to rule as dictaror) by a popular plebiscite where "[e]very free man within the age of majority living in the city was allowed to vote" (see "second government" section).

First let's talk about elections in Argentina and the role of the House of Representatives: "The House of Representatives remained a creature of the governor, whom it formally 'elected'. It was his custom to send his resignation to the House from time to time. It was never accepted, for the House of Representatives represented only the regime ... The assembly, lacking for the most part legislative function and financial control, was largely an exercise in public relations for the benefit of foreign and doemstic audiences, and it normally responded obsequiously to the iniatives of the governor." (Lynch, 2001, p.81)

What about Judicial branch? Let's see: "Rosas not only controlled the legislature but also dominated the judicial power. He not only made law; he interpreted it, changed it, and applied it. The machinery of justice no doubt continued to function: the justices of peace, judges for civil and criminal cases, the appeal judge, and the supreme court all gave institutional legitimacy to the regime. But the law did not rule. Arbitrary intervention by the execute undermined the independence of the judiciary. Rosas took many cases on himself, read the evidence..., examined the police reports, and, as he sat alone at his desk, gave judgment, writing on files 'shoot him', 'fine him', imprison him,' 'to the army'." (Lynch, 2001, p.81)

And the bureaucracy? "Rosas also controlled the bureaucracy. One of his first and most uncompromising measures was to purge the old administration; this action was the simplest way of removing political enemies and rewarding followers". (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

Rosas could rule over Buenos Aires province, but not over the rest of the Argentine provinces. Not at first, it's true. "The system of government Rosas and his colleagues operated was primitive in the extreme and completely lacked a constitutional framework. They did not govern Argentina. The thirteen provinces governed themselves independently, though they were grouped in the general Confederation of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. Even without formal union, however, the provinces were forced to delegate certain common itnerests to the government of Buenos Aires, mainly defense and foreign policy..." (Lynch, 2001, p.82) However, as time passed, "[h]is policy was to wear down the provincial caudillos [the rulers of the Argentine provinces], to conquer them by patience. In each of the provinces, he managed gradually to impose allied, satellite, or weak governors." (Lynch, 2001, p.83)

Ah, the myth of the "fake" resignations. I have seen that explanation sometimes, and I always noted a missing point in it: which was the purpose? If Rosas' power was so absolute, and he did not had the intention to resign, why bother with that charade at all? Ah, yes, of course he purged the old administration. Does Lynch give more detail about that "old administration" that he purged? No? It was the administration of Juan Lavalle, who took power by a military coup, executed the deposed governor Manuel Dorrego, and purged the old administration. Rosas purged Lavalle's men, and restored the administration that was ruling before the coup. That's how he got the nickname "The restorer of laws" in the first place.

The last paragraph is clearly faulty. The lack of a constitution does not mean there was no formal union: the provinces were still united by provincial pacts. That state of things was not created by Rosas, it predates his first term as governor. The provinces were not "forced" into it, and note that managing the foreign relations includes the payment of the external debt in the package. The provinces did not "delegate" their defense in Buenos Aires, it was a mutual defensive alliance. If any member of the Federal Pact was attacked, the other members would go to the defense. This benefits Buenos Aires (if attacked, it has allies), but also gave obligations (if other provinces are attacked, Buenos Aires must go to help) Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero, you should once and for all really stop handpicking the information that better suits your needs. "Rivadavia resigned, leaving to his successor Manuel Dorrego the tasks of arranging the peace with Brazil and restoring domestic order. Dorrego went further. He nullified the centralist constitution, reaffirmed provincial autonomy, and assumed the title of governor of Buenos Aires. Returning Unitarian troops overthrew and executed Dorrego soon afterward. His death set off a chain reaction ending with a new rebellion by Federalist landowners. The leader of this uprising was Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793-1877) ... Rosas effectively crushed the Unitarians in Buenos Aires." (Source: Whigham, Thomas L. The Paraguayan War: causes and early conduct. v.1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2002, p.51) Thus, it's no surprise that the Unitarians fought a men who simply threw the constitution into the trash. Now, the same books says soon after: "In Buenos Aires, demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca." (Whigham, 2002, p.53) Every single source mentions that Rosas was a dictator and that he had a death squad called the Mazorca. Except, of course, for Cambalachero's sources. --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dorrego did not nullify the national constitution. Stop to think about that for a moment: can a governor of a province, or even a president, nullify a constitution? No: the 1826 constitution was nullified by the only authority who could do so: the Constituent Assembly. After Rivadavia's resignation, Vicente López led a brief interim, and returned the national organization to the confederal state from before the assembly, leaving instructions to call a new constituent assembly (source: "Julio César Furundarena, "Historia Constitucional Argentina", p.290-292). By the way, Whigham forgot to mention that the 1826 constitution was rejected in all the other provinces, you can't blame a single man of Buenos Aires, or even a local movement in the province, for the failure of it (but perhaps Whigham does not go to great detail anyway because his work is about a conflict that took place half a century afterwards). And another detail: you imply that Lavalle led a coup against Dorrego because of the fate of the 1826 constitution. Then why didn't he restore it, or nullify the nullification, in the half a year he ruled the province? Cambalachero (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Elections under Rosas

"The system was a fraud and a farce: the government sent a list of official candidates, and it was the task of the justices of the peace to ensure that these were elected. Open and verbal voting, the rights of the justices to exclude voters and candidates whom they considered unqualified, the intimidation of opposition; these and many other malpractices reduced the elections to absurdity. Rosas frankly admited that elections had to be controlled, and he condemned as hypocricy the demand for free elections. His government, he told the assembly [the House of Representatives] in 1837, 'has sent many worthy residents and magistrates throughout the province lists which contained the names of those citizens who in its opinion were fit to represent the rights of their country, in order to favor their election, if so they wished.' In practice the Rosas lists were an absolute order, and those gauchos [the Argentine peasantry] who went to the polls did as voting fodder." (Lynch, 2001, p.50)

No, finally, let's talk about the plebiscite where the Argentines willing (or was it?) allowed Rosas to become a dictator: "The plebiscite was held on March 26-28 in the parishes of Buenos Aires city, and the electorate had to vote yes or no for the projected law... First, the plebiscite was held only in Buenos Aires city... Second, whereas normally only a few hundred people voted at elections, this time greater numbers participated. The result was 9,316 for the new law, 4 against. If we assume a population of some 60,000 in Buenos Aires and a voting population of 20,000, Rosas received a vote of 50 percent of the electorate, and even this portion urged to the polls by a mixture of official propaganda and pressure from activists. The menace exerted by Rosas' political machine was real enough, as shall be seen. For this reason the heavy abstentions were significant; to abstain was a positive and dangerous act, and for many people a militant one. Rosas never repeated the experiment." (Lynch, 2001, p.80)

And Sarmiento (who can never be accused of supporting Rosas) said "No se tiene noticia de ciudadano alguno que no fuese a votar... debo decirlo en obsequio a la verdad histórica: nunca hubo gobierno más popular, más deseado, ni más bien sostenido por la opinión" ("there is no information about any citizen that did not vote... I must say it as a gft to historical truth: there was never a government more popular, desired and better held by the opinion") Cambalachero (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, Lynch's text seems like a plagiarism of "De la revolución de independencia a la confederación rosista" by Tulio Halperin Donghi, p. 330. And worse, a plagiarism that conveniently forgets a detail added by Donghi: the "experiment" was the conditions of the election, not the elections themselves, which were not cancelled. Cambalachero (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

State terrorism

Rosas was not merely a dictator, but he ruled with terror. The words "Terror", "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" have been often used to describe his regime, his practices and himself (and his allies). There is an entire chapter in John Lynch's work aptly called "The Terror" that goes from page 95 until page 119. Theodore Link and Rose McCarthy said that "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country."[9] David Marley said that "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..."[10] James Schofield Saeger said that "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country."[11] James D Henderson said that "The blocaked damaged the Buenos Aires economy and gave Rosas justification for a wave of terror against his domestic foes."[12] Jason Wilson said that "Juan Manuel de Rosas (sometimes spelt Rozas), the rich and well-bred landowner who became dictator of Buenos Aires and ruled with terror, lived..."[13] Carlos Ramirez-Faria said that "Juan Manuel de Rosas pacified and centralized the country through a liberal use of terrorist methods."[14]

Rosas could be pleasant and charming when needed, but according to John Lynch, "he was a hard taskmaster and could suddenly fly into a rage and emit threats of throat cutting like the vilest of his henchmen." (Lynch, 2001, p.86) But what was the Terror?

This article mentions the Mazorca only twice. The Mazorca, or officially, the Sociedad Popular Restauradora, was the paramilitary wing of Rosas' regime. It was the equivalent to Fascist Italy's Blackshirts and Nazi Germany's SS. According to the article here at Wikipedia (unsurprisingly created and written by Cambalachero) about it, the Sociedad Popular Restauradora (or Mazorca) killed "nearly 20 in 1840 and 20 more in 1842." They actually executed around 2,000 people, if not more, from 1829 until 1852. (Lynch, 2001, p.118) There is no mention of the thousands of political executions and tortured people in this article about Rosas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen (talk • contribs) 14:04, December 17, 2012

And now the contradictions begin. The Mazorca made Rosas the master of the country? You have cited before that each province managed its own affairs, with some exceptions such as foreign relations. Police force was not among those exceptions. The 20 and 20 are the cases which actually have documentary support. The idea of the Mazorca leading an ordeal of executions during all days of all the Rosas regime was mentioned a lot in the past, but fails to locate any actual documentary support. Note that Lynch speaks of actions of the Mazorca "from 1829 to 1852", but actually that organization was created in 1833 and disbanded in 1846. Which suggest that Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do) Cambalachero (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you did not provide a rebuttal to the notion that Rosas ruled by terror. Binksternet (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The concept of state terrorism (or "terror" for that matter) is a XX century concept, which is unprofessional to extrapolate to historical periods when no such concept existed. It is also commonplace that the state gets more strict during wartime. But let an author say it. According to Marcelo Lascano, "The 'bloody methods' must be associated to the 1840 mutinies, and they are sanctions to the collusion of national peoples with the foreign invader and not a natural predisposition of the regime. During WWII, and before, during the War of Secession (1861-1865), the United States developed discriminatory methods to secure national security, and nobody objected it because it was an undeniable reality. Normalized in 1845 the situation in La Plata, the government, as it was logical, began to restore the properties once confiscated, as John Lynch also accepted". And I might add that it was also after such normalization that the Mazorca was disbanded, in 1846. Félix Luna: "It is very difficult to make an overall judgment of the Restorer. To formulate it, means to fall into unfair generalizations, and worse, judge a man of the past through modern standards. Can we consider the respect held for human life in those tremendous decades, according to our modern sensitivity? Is it possible to understand the danger of national disintegration or severe impairment of our independence, when such dangers seem unthinkable today?" Lascano also adds: "Neither Washington first nor Abraham Lincoln almost a century after the challenge to George III, King of England, doubted between the reforms that delighted them or the triumph of weapons when the national security was at stake. The consolidation of national unity came first, as the minimal political logic seems to advise. This is what, as method, drived the federals, with Rosas at their head, at least while the pacification of the country was still an unresolved issue. It shall never be forgotten that between the aggression of a US ship to the Malvinas in 1831 up to Caseros in 1852 the country was involved almost without interruption in civil and international wars of an unrepeated magnitude".

One of the sources also says that many people fled the country. Let's see Lascano. "The responsability of the phenomenon is attributed almost exclusively to Rosas. However, it began at early 1829, headed by Rivadavia, Julián Segundo de Agüero, Salvador María del Carril, the brothers Juan Cruz and Florencio Varela and other important unitarians, surely motivated by the problems caused since 1828 by the insurrection of Lavalle and its terrible institutional consequences. Here it is worth remembering that Rosas took power in december 1829 [...] Sarmiento only moved to Chile in 1840, apparently without any violence towards him [...]. Dalmasio Vélez Sarsfield emigrated in 1842 - the year of greatest tension - because he felt persecuted, but acconding to González Arzac (following Abel Chaneton) he returned 'to put his talent as jurist at the service of the country, not Rosas'". The author details somewhere else in the book how many people who had emigrated began to return to the country during the brief end of military conflicts mentioned, with Rosas still in power. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansionist plans

Rosas wished to annex Argentine neighbors, Paraguay and Uruguay. This was said by Paraguayan historian Cecilo Baez (Bosquejo historico del Brasil. Assuncion: La Colmena, 1940, p.75: "Para Rosas, Paraguay y Uruguay no eran sino provincias rebeldes de la Confederacion Argentina") and even by Argentine revisionist (that is, pro-Rosas) Pacho O'Donnel (Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial. Buenos Aires: NORMA, 2008, p.300). John Lynch, on the other hand, believed that Rosas wanted to annex Paraguay and keep Uruguay as client state (Lynch, 2001, p.140): "Rosas had never recoginzed Paraguaya as an independent nation. He still called it the província del Paraguay and sought its 'recovery', aiming to extend the frontiers of the confederation to those of the old Spanish viceroyalty. Uruguay was an exception because its independence had been secured by treaty and its conquest would be extremely difficult. So it was improbable that Rosas wished to destroy the independence of Uruguay; it suited him better to reduce it to satellitle status, the natural destiny of a weaker neighbor."

There is not a single mention of any of this in this article.

Paraguay was an Argentne province until 1842, when it declared its independence. Rosas did not accept it, but it is incorrect to to say that he wanted to "annex" Paraguay, same as Spain did not want to "annex" its South American colonies, nor Brazil wanted to "annex" the Riograndese Republic. As for Uruguay, Rosas does not need motivations: it was Fructuoso Rivera who declared war to Argentina, so Rosas waged the war against him (and against others that may ally with him in such conflict) until the end of the conflict. Cambalachero (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See the Declaration of war to Bolivia, 4º declaration, pages 4 and 5. "That the Argentine Confederation, in the fight it has been provoked into, holds no territorial pretension beyond its natural borders, and protests in the presence of the universe and for the posterity that it takes weapons to save the integrity, independence and honour of the Argentine Confederation". In fact, Felipe Heredia, governor of Salta, requested to Rosas to include the reannexation of Tarija (Ruiz Moreno, p. 69), but as you can see, he declined it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Platine War

The international war between the Argentine Confederation and an alliance of the Empire of Brazil, Uruguay and the Argentine provinces of Corrientes and Entre Ríos is not even mentioned in here. In fact, Brazil's role is oddly downplayed: "Without ships, Urquiza sought the help of the Empire of Brazil as well. However, he thought that the Brazilian help would be of little use, and only agreed to accept them by the intervention of Herrera" and "...where Entre Ríos and Corrientes would lead the operation and Uruguay and Brazil would provide only auxiliar armies. Urquiza defeated Rosas in the Battle of Caseros, on February 3, 1852".

Actually, Rosas himself regarded Brazil as the main enemy and as the key player that led to his downfall. "Rosas had at that point [1851] a preoccupation and obsession: the Empire of Brazil" ("Rosas tenía en aquel momento una preocupación y una obsesión: el imperio del Brasil." (O'Donnel, 2008, p.300) Also important: "Rosas himself believed that he had been defeated not by the [Argentine] people but by foreigners. He asserted after [the Battle of] Caseros, 'It is not the people who have overthrown me. It is the macocos ["monkeys", a racist nod to Black Brazilians], the Brazilians." (Lynch, 2001, p.159)

The article also ignores that 12,000 Brazilians were about to invade Argentina when Rosas unexpectedly gave up after a single battle of that the Brazilian warships were blockading Buenos Aires.

Those opinions of Rosas are mere political analysis. If the article says that Entre Ríos and Corrientes led the operations and Uruguay and Brazil would provide only auxiliar armies, it is because the written text of the alliance between the four specifically arranged the command structure that way. The idea that it was actually a fight against Brazil, despite being mentioned by some revisionists, never got much hold. After all, this "war" does not even have a Spanish name! And, as once pointed in the talk page, only 50 English books talk about a "Platine war". I will also mention that the author of the book used as a reference of that section is a member of the National Academy of History of Argentina Cambalachero (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The text of treaty is detailed here. See article 2: "Under the above statement the states of Entre Rios and Corrientes take the lead of the operations of the war, becoming principal part in it, and the Empire of Brazil and the Oriental Republic will work for the swift and better success end we all seek as mere auxiliaries." Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you had actually read something about the war you would know the reason for Brazil be placed in the treaty as an "auxiliary". The first and most important reason was to give the legal appearance that the conflict was a mere civil war, and not a full international war, thus preventing Great Britain from finding an excuse to intervene. Even though, it is good to remember, that the Argentine Confederation had declared war on the Empire of Brazil. The second reason, as told by Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, the Brazilian plenipotentiary, was "como medida política em relação às suscetibilidades do nacionalismo castelhano" (as a political measure regarding susceptibilities of the Castilian [Argentine] nationalism [pride]). Source: Sousa, José Antônio Soares de. Honório Hermeto no Rio da Prata: missão especial de 1851/52. São Paulo: Editora Nacional, 1959, pp. 23-27 (chapter O Convênio de 21 de Novembro de 1851; The Agreement of 21 November 1851). The book is entirely devoted to the diplomatic side of the conflict. That's the greatest difference between you and I, Cambalachero. I actually have knowledge of the subject under discussion. I read about it, I studied it. I have sources. --Lecen (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Make it seem like a civil war and not an international war, to avoid British interference? It was an international war already, and not since Brazil joined the conflict but since Fructuoso Rivera, president of Uruguay, declared war to Argentina. Britain had already found an "excuse to intervene", did so, and signed the Arana-Southern treaty to end their conflict with Rosas. Britain accepted that the Argentine forces supporting the Uruguayan president Oribe would stay in Uruguay until the French troops retired. Besides, what did Brazil had to fear from a British intervention against Rosas, when they had requested it themselves, but Britain and France did it on their own, rejecting the Brazilian help? And if the Brazilians were concerned about the Argentine pride, why did they request a parade in their honour?

I have another theory. Or, more exactly, Isidoro Ruis Moreno (in "Campañas militares Argentinas", cited), member of the National Academy of History, has another theory: Brazil was second to Urquiza because Brazil had no other choice but to be second to Urquiza. If Urquiza did not turn against Rosas, Brazil had no chances. The numbers speak alone, but let's see some documents used by Moreno. A commnt of the government of Brazil to the British james Hudson, on May 1, 1851 (ignoring the events in Concepción del Uruguay): "Between the Imperial government of Brazil and the Governor of Buenos Aires there are no issues por which, at least from part of the Imperial Government, a war should began" (translated into English). Urquiza only called the Brazilian Rodrigo de Souza da Silva Pontes the following May 20, to request him that the Empire kept forces watching the Uruguay and Parana rivers: that was all the role he intended for them. He goes on for some pages, detailing the movements of Silva Pontes, which clearly detail that it was Urquiza who was leading the negotiations. He points as well that the Brazilian forces played no role in the victory against Oribe, and a very minor one in Caseros.

The very book cited by Lecen, the one by O'Donnell, accepts that point at the chapter "El milagro de la casa de Brandemburgo". Still, it follows the dea that Urquiza was "bought" by the Empire to change sides. According to "Historia Argentina" by Norberto Galasso, that theory has the flaw of the Great Man theory: it does not explain why would the people from Entre Ríos follow Urquiza in this "betrayal". If a single man, for whatever reason, changes sides and goes against the will of the people under his command, that people riots and refuses to follow the traitor leader; as it happened to Urquiza himself when he supported Mitre in the War of the Triple Alliance, which the people from Entre Ríos refused to fight and had to be taken chained to the battlefield. Cambalachero (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Cambalachero said in another thread: "Which proves that, unlike Hitler, positive views of Rosas are not at all a tiny minority, and are even sponsored by the Argentine state." Is this true? Let's see. The American historian William Dusemberry, in his article to The Hispanic American Historical Review, dated 1961, wrote: "Rosas is a negative memory in Argentina. He left behind him the black legend of Argentine history-a legend which Argentines in general wish to forget. There is no monument to him in the entire nation; no park, plaza, or street bears his name."[15]

What happened since 1961, then? When Rosas became, in the words of Cambalachero, someone whom many have a "positive view" and who is "even sponsored by the Argentine state"? The answer lies in another book written in English, Lyman L. Johnson's Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America. Let's see:

"Rosas supportes worked relentlessly... to repatriate their hero. They were aided by the growth in the 1920s and 1930s of the revisionist school of historiography that worked to rehabilitate Rosas' regime... Revisionists naturally focused on Rosas's strong suit as defender of national sovereignty... Also in the 1930s, the Pro-Repatriation of Rosas Committee was established, and by the 1960s it had become quite active, even seeking the aid of exiled former president Juan D. Perón. An ardent admirer of Rosas, Juan Perón, along with his wife Evita, had governed Argentina from 1946 to 1955, when he was ousted by a military coup... Perón was, in many ways, similar to Juan Manuel [de Rosas]: a military background, a popular base of power, strong nationalist sentiments, a life of exile...; and denigrated memory in the official histories of the nation... When Perón returned to office again in 1973, after nearly twenty years of exile, he appointed ... ambassador to England and gave him two specific charges... repatriate the remains of Juan Manuel de Rosas... the new president, Dr. Carlos Saúl Menem, who took office in July 1989. Having served as the Peronist governor of the province of La Rioja, Menem... capitalized on the populist tradition of Peronism and effectively employed federalist symbols from the Rosas era... Menem wanted to redraw the Argentine genealogical family tree, to displace Mitre's gallery of celebrities with a more inclusive pantheon."

Thus, the revisionist Pro-Rosas became a pewerful force (if we could theme it in that way) in the 1930s wheh it became common in the Western world to support authoritarian regimes. It was a dictator like Perón who supported the revisionism. And it were Perón's followers (the Peronism) like Menem and the Kirshner's couple that continued his struggle to rehabilitate a dictator like Rosas.

A good representation of how far-reaching is the goal of Cambalachero to whitewash Rosas' biography can be seen in the article Blood tables (created by Cambalachero and written by him). It is about a 19th century books about Rosas' executions. Cambalachero says in the lead: "The book was used as a primary source by the early historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; modern historians consider it biased, inaccurate and unreliable." The source used? Carlos Smith's Juan Manuel de Rosas ante la posteridad, a revisionist work.

Another fine example of how biased the articles relating to Rosas have become at Wikipedia is Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas.

What's happening in here is that Cambalachero is writing a series of articles through the view of a minority historical school with the purpose of following a political agenda. It's like someone else started working articles about Mussolini or about the Holocaust from the point of view of revisionists. And that's not how it's supposed to be. We could even add in a "Legacy" section something about the Revisionists, but not in the main body of text as it were a legitimate source. --Lecen (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perón was revisionist himself, but did not promote revisionism from the government. In fact when he nationalized the railways, he named them... Urquiza, Sarmiento and Mitre. No, revisionism is not the artificial invention of some governor. It predates Perón (it began in the XIX century, in fact), and grew across governments of several different political lines. And better don't talk in Argentina about Menem and the Kirchners being the same thing, only antiperonists would fall into such simplification. In fact, the detail that the recognition to Rosas is shared by Menem and Kirchner, who hardly share anything else, is highly elocuent. Besides, Leopoldo Moreau of the UCR attends all the celebrations of the day of national sovereignthy. Is he, too, a "Perón follower"? Cambalachero (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The lack of sources in any of them reveal how much you're biased by your own point of view. --Lecen (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at home right now, I'm a bit busy in the countdown to christmas, but there are books to back everything I said. You'll have them in some days. Cambalachero (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have limited time right now, I will expand my answer here a bit (as it is the main topic that influence the others), and leave the other topics for later, when I have more time in real life. First of all, let's remember that historiography and public perception are different things: one takes place among scholars, and the other among society at large.

Let's begin with historiography. Clear mistakes. First, it speaks of historical revisionism as an unified thing, with an homogeneous political perspective over current (for its time) politics, and artificially promoted from the government. Not at all. As detailed and referenced in Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas#Peronism, revisionist historians (identified by name) had different political orientations: peronists, antiperonists, nonaligned, etc. Despite his personal ideas, Perón never made political proclamations on historiographical issues during his rule, and even eluded the topic in circumstances that would call for them. In fact, he removed revisionists from authority roles they had achieved during the military government of 1943 that predated him. If Peron's administration ever referenced history, it was with an inclusive angle, honouring national heroes that are universally acclaimed in the country as San Martín (and I already mentioned the nationalization of railways, and the names they got), or with a focus "the past is past, let's head for the future" rather than "we continue the work of X man from a century ago". On the other hand, most antiperonisms were against Rosas, and used such historical criticisms to pass indirect criticisms to Perón. Source: "Historia de la Historiografía Argentina" (Spanish: History of the historiography of Argentina), by Fernando Devoto, pages 268-271. As it is very long to quote (it's 4 whole pages), I scanned them and uploaded somewhere else here and here. Fernando Devoto is a teacher of historiography at the es:Facultad de Filosofía y Letras (Universidad de Buenos Aires).

The divergence of political ideas within revisionists is not limited to the Peronist period. It may be possible to point to several specific historians and detail their backgrounds, a work began at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas, but t is easier to point the words of Horacio González here: "The Rosist historical revisionism, in its variants (republican conservative, ultramontane Apostolic Catholic nationalist, popular nationalist and left-wing nationalist), and its more or less documentary or divulgative styles, is a widely public force in public awareness and in the media. From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first". Horacio González, as already said, is the president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, not an author from the lot. Modern historians do not even care about the dsputes about Rosas, and consider it a settled issue. Felix Luna: "It can be said that today all relevant documentation concerning Rosas and his time is already published. It is not likely the discovery of papers that may change the judgments made ​​by the various historiographical trends. It is even possible to say that the issue of Rosas has lost interest for most Argentine historians." (Luna, Félix (2003). La época de Rosas. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Planeta. ISBN 950-49-1116-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). Pablo Mendelevich: "Appeased as today is the traditional dispute around the figure of Rosas, heated historical debate and thoughts have shifted to 1910". Note that "historians" means the bulk of Argentine historians who work in a steady way in historical investigations in the country; there can always be one or two writers who defy the consensus or sticks to outdated misconceptions. Specially foreign authors, if for their works they simply read what another author said and did not take the work to locate the documentary evidence and confirm things by themselves (something that would require them to travel to another country).

As for the public perception, it did not change thanks to peronism. On the contrary, it changed thanks to antiperonism. As mentioned, most antiperonists embraced the rejection to Rosas as an indirect way to embellish their opposition to Perón, drawing a parallelism between antirosism and themselves. Thus the quote of Lonardi after deposing Perón, "neither victors nor vanquished", the same quote (and not a coincidence, but a deliverate repeat) used by Urquiza after deposing Rosas. Not only was Perón deposed, but the whole Peronism was proscripted. Unlike Perón, who avoided the historical disputes, the new military governments made an extensive use of it for propaganda: Perón was the dictator and they were the saviors of the nation, same as Rosas was the dictator in the XIX century and the unitarians were the saviors of the nation. But for the people, who still supported the exiled Perón, the military were not saviors, that was clear. But instead of rejection the whole "May-Caseros-Libertadora" propaganda, they embraced it and changed the terms: yes, Perón was a new Rosas, and Lonardi a new Urquiza, but reversing who of them was the hero and who was the villain. Historical revisionism, which so far was limited to scholar discussions, found this way an entry into the perception of the main public. This is the answer for Lecen's "what happened since 1961?" question. Historica revisionism began already in the XIX century, but the change in the social perception of Rosas took place a long time later, during the peronist proscription (and not promoted by a government, but against a government's wishes). And even yet, Perón did not embrace it immediately, but after some time: in 1956, he compared the coup against him with the "Mazorca". So the change was led by Peronism as a social movement, not by Perón himself. Devoto, p. 278-279, here.

That's it for now, as I said I'm a bit busy. We will continue this later... unless the Mayan prophecy of the end of the world happens to be real, and the four horsemen cross the sky singing "Highway to hell" Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'd be happy to help resolve this situation ... I'm coming here from the WP:3O page. Can both editors briefly restate (under this post) what the issue is (include sources & page numbers in the statement)? Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Neolander, thank you very much for having taken your time to dicuss this. The issue is quite simple: I believe that this article presents a whitewashed history of Juan Manuel de Rosas. He was a dictator, a brutal one, who ruled through terror and who had expansionist goals. This is not what I believe he was, that is what he called himself and that's how historians see him. Now let's see the main points:

1) What are the best sources about Rosas? The best source in English about the life of Juan Manuel de Rosas is John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. This is the second edition of his biography and it was published in 2001. The first edition is called Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas and was published in 1981. It is regarded as the "definitive" biography of Rosas by Encyclopædia Britannica.[16] Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[17] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[18] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[19]

2) Rosas regarded himself a dictator:The title he gave for himself was "Tirano ungido por Dios para salvar a la patria" ("Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland").[20][21] He said once: "I have always admired autocratic dictators who have been the first servants of their people. That is my great title: I have always sought to serve the contry". (Lynch, 2001, p.163) He regarded the dictatorship as best form of government: "For me the ideal of good government would be paternal autocracy, intelligent, desinterested and indefatigable..." (Lynch, 2001, p.75) A passage of Lynch's books is revealing: "In short, Rosas ws an absolute ruler. 'As he told himself', remarked the British minister Southern, 'he wields a power more absolute than any monarch on his throne.'" (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

3) State terrorism: Rosas ruled through terror. I know the word is strong but it's the one used by historians. See:

a) "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government to eliminate enemies..." (page 96) "Rosas was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree." (page 118) Source: Lynch, John. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. 2 ed. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2001 ISBN 0-8420-2897-8

b) "Juan Manuel de Rosas (sometimes spelt Rozas), the rich and well-bred landowner who became dictator of Buenos Aires and ruled with terror, lived..." Source: [22]

c) "Juan Manuel de Rosas pacified and centralized the country through a liberal use of terrorist methods." Source: [23]

d) "The blockade damaged the Buenos Aires economy and gave Rosas justification for a wave of terror against his domestic foes." Source: [24]

e) "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country." Source: page 27 of Saeger, James Schofield. Francisco Solano López and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Estover Road, Plymoth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. ISBN 0-7425-3754-4

f) "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country." Source: page 27 of Link, Theodore; Rose McCarthy. Argentina: A Primary Source Cultural Guide. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004. ISBN 0-8239-3997-9

g) "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..." Source: page 487 of Marley, David. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 1998. ISBN 0-87436-837-5

h) "Rosas was re-elected as Governor on 13 April, this time with dictatorial powers ... Rosas would reign supreme in Argentina thereafter until the Battle of Caseros in 1852 creating a secret police force named the Mazorca which punished disloyalty by means of state terrorism. Its most notorious acts were committed during the months of April and May 1842, when, if contemporary accounts are true, the streets of the capital were awash with blood..." Source: page 15 of Hooker, Terry D. (2008). The Paraguayan War. Nottingham: Foundry Books. ISBN 1-901543-15-3

i) "In Buenos Aires, Rosas demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca." Source: page 53 of Whigham, Thomas L. (2002). The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct. 1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-4786-4

j) "...especially as the celebrated dictator of Buenos Aires, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1835-1852) was believed to be ambitious to restore..." Source: pages 72-73 of Haring, Clarence H. (1969). Empire in Brazil: a New World Experiment with Monarchy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. OCLC 310545470

k) "Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina since the 1830s as caudillo of Buenos Aires, its richest province and its major port..." Source: page 121 of Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5369-2

l) "This group was headed by Rosas, who became dictator of Buenos Aires, and effectively of the whole country. for most of the period between 1829 and 1852. His was a brutal reign in which he asserted..." Source: page 16 of Leuchars, Chris (2002). To the bitter end: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32365-8

m) "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..." and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance." Source: pages 47 and 57 of Lewis, Daniel K. The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 ISBN 1-4039-6254-5

n) "The period of Rosas' second governorship, which was to extend until 1852, was marked by increasing authoritarianism that has coloured his historical image... Rosas also created a more sinister force, known as the Mazorca... those accused of opposition were often tortured or had their throats cut." Source: pages 8 and 9 of Hedges, Jill. Argentina: A Modern History. New York: I.B.Tauris, 2011 ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7

o) "In Argentina, Juan Manuel de Rosas established his personalist dictatorship, with Dorrego dead and San Martín and Rivadavia in exile." Source: page 160 of Seckinger, Ron. The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republics, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1984 ISBN 0-8071-1156-2

There are other issues, but the question of Rosas being a brutal dictator is the main one. Cambalachero (the other user) removed from the article any mention (including sourced) that Rosas was a dictator. (See here) In fact, he wrote the article in a way that gives the impression that his political opponents were the one who called Rosas a dictator, but that historians, mainly 20th and 21th century ones do not. That's one big lie. Cambalachero is whitewashing other articles too, such as Juan Perón. There is no word that Perón was a dictator, nor that he was well known friend of Nazi nor of his antisemitism. But Perón's article is not the focus of the present discussion. I only wanted to use it as example to show how far Cambalachero has gone. Once you have time and patience, try to read the entire thread ("About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article"). You'll realize that Cambalachero avoided answering most of my comments and the ones he did answer, he didn't bring a single source to back his claims. --Lecen (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Of course, the WP:NPOV policy requires that articles present all viewpoints about the topic of the article, so negative material should certainly be included provided that it is supported by sources. I'll look into the sources later. The WP:UNDUE policy, on the other hand, requires that the negative material be presented in rough proportion to the weight the sources give it. I'll wait until Cambalachero provides his input before I make any more comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Please keep your comment concise, and supply sources (and page numbers) to support all your points. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Due to real-life obligations, my visits to WP will be sporadic for the next couple of weeks. If you post a note, I may not be able to reply for several days. That doesn't mean I've given up! Starting around January 2, 2013, I should be able to participate daily. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you may have missed the point: it's not a matter of adding two different points of view. But the correct one. We don't write "According to some historians, Hitler killed 6 million jews, but according to others, he didnt." Revisionism is not accepted in here as a second opinion. --Lecen (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what sources Cambalachero provides. --Noleander (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As requested, I will make this short and to the point. Lecen wants the article to say "Rosas was a dictator...", as a statement in wikipedia's voice. But "dictator" is a word that labels, and shall only be used when the usage is universal. Is Rosas universally considered a dictator? No, he is not, and I have provided the required references (books, scanned pages, some info about the authors) about the old controversy at the "Legacy" thread. If the opinion is not universal, the aticle must detail who thinks one thing, who thinks the other, and the current state of the dispute. Remember as well that books authors do not have the policy of avoiding words that label, so the existence of authors that use it does not mean we should. You can make a comparison with Oliver Cromwell, a similar example closer to English-speaking audiences: a man who was depised as a dictator, but honoured by others. The article (which, as far as I remember, I have never touched) mentions who considers him a dictator, but avoids the label "Oliver Cromwell was a dictator...". The same approach should be used here. Cambalachero (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: thanks for your reply. I read through the Legacy section above; and I also read the Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Could you do me a favor: I've been unable to find - in that reading - any quotes from (modern) sources which say "Rosas was not a dictator" or "Historian X says Rosas was a dictator, but that historian is wrong". Could you supply some quotes from sources that say things similar to that? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's something I'd like to see, since Rosas styled himself "Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland" and was an outspoken advocate of authoritarian regimes. He regarded himself a dictator but there are historians who regard him a democratic president? I really want to see that. --Lecen (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm compiling some sources, it may take a day or two. But for the moment, I'll advance that the answer to Lecen's previous question is a "yes". Cambalachero (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Most historians actually use the term Caudillo for Rosas. A caudillo is not the same thing as a dictator.

In fact, the term caudillismo is used to refer to a political period of Latin American history.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The particular issue we are addressing here is to what extent this article should state that Rosas is a dictator; if so: in the encyclopedia's voice? or use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Should the term "dictator" be qualified when used? We've got a good set of sources listed above, we are now waiting for balancing sources. Caudillo, if the sources use it a lot for Rosas, may be a good term to include in the article, but even if it were used, the "dictator" issue would still remain because the article would have to define the term Caudillo using plainer English words (because very few readers would know what Caudillo means) - thus we will need to determine if "dictator" should be used in the definition of Caudillo as applied to Rosas. --Noleander (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Caudillo does have a complicated meaning to it, but that's a result of it being primarily a Latin American political phenomenom.

The positive and negative definitions both agree that caudillos are identified as charismatic strongmen with a strong personal following (a personality cult). Rosas fits this description, and this is what should be undisputed.

The question of whether Rosas was democratic or authoritarian is subject to personal POV, and therefore should follow the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The definition of caudillo actually leaves this question "open" on purpose, because caudillos are guilty of being both democratic and authoritarian. Some can be highly democratic, to the point of being elected through democratic popular support (such as Juan Peron). Rosas, as caudillo of the Argentine Confederation, was actually quite democratic relative to the Unitarians (who wanted to centralize power in Buenos Aires). Yet, both Rosas and Peron are also known for being quite ruthless, given the opportunity.

However, to exclusively label either of them as "democratic" or "dictator" (in the modern sense of it being solely authoritarian), would be going against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Such claims must be attributed to the people who claim it.

Hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: "The question of whether Rosas was democratic or authoritarian is subject to personal POV, and therefore should follow the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" ... that is not accurate. If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority. --Noleander (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The support to Rosas generally comes from the "security" side of the "security vs. liberty" dichotomy that all countries in the world had to face at some point or another in their histories. Or, to use less loaded words, the "pragmatism vs. adherence to principles" dichotomy. Relaxed in the comfort of our houses, when the crises are over (or contained in history books) or they are someone else's problem, we are all the champions of principles, but in time of crisis, it is the pragmatists who cope with them and provide solutions. Other historians point that Rosas made no coup, and that the release of public power was completely legal when it was made.

So, let's see some pragmatics. We can begin with a contemporary of Rosas, José de San Martín. "Men do not live from dreams but from facts. What I care if it is repeated over and over again that I live in a country of liberty, if on the contrary, I'm being oppressesed? Freedom!, Give it to a child of two years for enjoying by way of fun with a box of razor blades and you tell me the results. Freedom! So that if I devote myself to any kind of industry, comes a revolution that destroy the work of many years and the hope of leaving a loaf of bread for my children. Freedom! In order to charge me for contributions to pay the huge costs incurred, for four ambitious because they feel like, by way of speculation, making a revolution and go unpunished. Freedom! For the bad faith to found complete impunity as proved by the generality of bankruptcies ... this freedom, nor is the son of my mother going to enjoy the benefits it provides, until you see established a government that demagogues called tyrant, and protect me against the properties that freedom gives me today. Maybe you may tell that this letter is written in a good soldierly humor. You will be right, but you agree that at age 53 one can not admit that good faith will want to take for a ride ... Let this matter conclude and let me end by saying that the man who set the order of our country, whatever the means that for it employees, is the only one that would deserve the noble title of Liberator". Note, of course, that those described in the first paragraphs are the unitarians. When Rosas was appointed governor in 1835, with the sum of public power, San Martín wrote to Tomás Guido. "Twenty five years searching for a liberty which not only has not existed, but in this long period the oppresion, the personal insecurity, destruction of wealths, wantonness, venality, corruption and civil war have been the fruit that the Fatherland has got after so many sacrifices. It was about time to put an end to evils of such dimension, and to achieve such laudable purpose I see as good and legal any government that establishes order in a solid and stable manner, and I do not doubt that you and all men who love their country will think as I do".

As Lecen wants to read about Rosas considered a “democratic president”, let’s begin to list historians with Manuel Gálvez wrote “Vida de Juan Manuel de Rosas”, isbn 978-950-620-208-8 (note that Rosas was not a president). Talking about his popularity when he began his first term, Gálvez wrote "Juan Manuel de Rosas represents the primary love to the Fatherland, the adherence to our own land, the Americanism against the Europeist fervor of the unitarians. He also represents, against the aristocratic tendencies of his enemies, the democracy. This is the truth, like it or not. Juan Manuel de Rosas, in those days, represents the democracy of the gauchos and the pampas, and the democracy of the populace of Buenos Aires". (pg. 123) He details how Rosas rejected several honours that the Legislature tried to give him. "Has Rosas despised those supporters? His haughtiness of gaucho, his moral health of man of the contryside, surely dislike the flattery and the fear of his friends. But he does not pretend to be a dictator. He requested and accepted the extraordinary faculties because it was impossible to govern back then without them. He requested them more for precaution than anything else. He barely makes use of them, and we shall see how he returns them". As of 1835, he writes “He couldn’t have been such a tyrant when everybody, freely, request his return to power! Rosas has not seized the government. He has been sought, he has been invited. Rich and poor, everybody believes that only him, with his strong arm, can rule. Everybody knows that only he can impose order, destroy the anarchy and reorganize the nation. Everybody knows hat only he has the patriotism and the will of self-sacrifice to futfill the tragic mission announced by the prophetic words of José de San Martín". And, as Lecen has played the “Nazi card” several times, let’s hear the opinion of an actual contemporary of World War II: "Does the Rosist regime have any similarity with fascism or nazism? Can it be considered a pecursor of those systems? No. Rosas keeps the democratic customs and respects the legislature. He does not renege from liberty, neither his supporters; and if he has limited it is because he rules in an abnormal time. In the vast mailing of Rosas and his public documents there is not a single word against freedom; he considers the unitarians enemies of it, those who in fact cancelled it in 1828. He keeps all the power in his hands, but everywhere during stormy times power is simplified." And more. "Many people imagine that Rosas, “dictator” and even “tyrant”, could not have been democrat. They consider that without freedom there is no democracy. It’s a mistake. Democracy is “government of the people”, with or without freedom, which does not define it. And there is no doubt that Rosas rules for the people and represent them. Nowadays we do not conceive democracy but linked to liberalism, but it hasn’t been always that way. Besides, we must not confuse purely political democracy with social democracy."

Julio Irazusta wrote “Vida política de Juan Manuel de Rosas a través de su correspondencia”. In Volume II, about he sum of public power, he says: "In the fourth decade of the XIX century, the sum of public power and its use was not an anacronism. The political conflict between the agents of the former social regime and those of the revolution that sought to renew or destroy it had all Europe under siege, as Rosas had pointed in his mail to Quiroga; and took place in a context of unbridled violence, whose details return the Argentine drama to its real character of an episode of a tragic worldwide crisis. Revolutionaries wanted to sap the foundations of traditional order of society: religion, class inequalities, political and economic priviledges, juridic incapabilities of religious dissidents and foreigners, the severity of the penal system, etc. And the defenders of the established order, to keep them, to mount the restoration on them, or to combine them with the most rational demands of the innovators. The process did not follow the same patterns everywhere, as circumstances of time and place changed dramatically from one country to the other. But the fight was always inflamed. And the most characteristic difference in the degree of that inflamation across regions is highly illustrative of the Argentine case: in the places where the national state does not exist, or its existence was compromised, or it was in formation, the fight was more violent than in those who were already organized."

Arturo Jauretche wrote “Don Juan Manuel y el revisionismo tímido”. In relation to the letter of the hacienda of Figueroa, he wrote: "Let’s accept that it is the mail of a rancher, but the political platform detailed there is not the platform of a rancher: it is the platform of a national politician who did not cease being a rancher but who does not subject the politics to the ranch. Quite the contrary. For his taste, he would be unitarian and supporter of an aristocratic society, but his county, his Fatherland, does not accept that; that’s no solution for her, and as he sees that the solution is federal and democratic, that’s the solution he chooses".

Jaime Gálvez, talking about the sum of public power "On first sight it would seem, from a theoretical point of view, the establishment of an absolute monarchy, as according to Jean Bodin sovereignthy can be located in the people (democracy), in a minority (aristocracy) or a single man (monarchy). But this first impression dissapears when we consider the time limit, the five-years long term, the legislature, and other details of the republican form of government that stayed. Let’s discard, then, monarchy. Would it be a tyranny? But let’s discuss first what is a tyranny. The ones who studied this topic the most are the classic greeks (note: I skip a long paragraph about greeks, pointless here). The Greek authors find 3 main characteristics of tyranny: foreign help to take government, oppresing tributes towards the people and their properties, and finally, personal wealth and profit as the ultimate motivation. None of those characteristics existed in the March 7 law, voted directly by the people and ratified by their representatives, nor appeared later during the rule of the federal governor".

Luis Soler Cañas: "For me, Rosas was an incarnation of democracy, because he led a government for the people, a truly popular government. Rosas was plebiscited, do not forget that, and all the extraordinary powers released on him – indispensable to rule the country during a period particularly difficult and harsh – were given by the legislature of Buenos Aires. Never did Rosas took any power that was not given or delegated by the people or their representatives. This in regard of the legal side, t must be considered as well that Rosas, as all the great national caudillos, was a real manifestation of the popular will, an active representation of the soul and energy of the people, the one were people delegated all their powers, beyond the complications of complex legal systems."

There are many more examples, but I think those will do for the moment. Cambalachero (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Thanks for providing those sources and quotes. That really helps define the issue. Looking at these sources, and comparing them with the "is a dictator" sources above, it appears that the "is a dictator" sources are more compelling. The sources presented in the "not a dictator" list are not very impressive: I don't see a major, modern, respected biographer anywhere in the list.

• José de San Martín is not a detached historian
• Arturo Jauretche is a politician himself.
• Manuel Gálvez seems legitimate, but more information is needed to assess his value: When did he write his biography? Why is the biography not yet used in the article? What are his credentials?
• Julio Irazusta may be a good source: but I do not see in his quote above where he writes "Rosas was not a dictator" (or anything similar).
• Other sources cannot be assessed without more information: who are Jaime Gálvez and Luis Soler Cañas?

Without a description of their credentials, it is impossible to assess their opinions. Based on the sources presented, it seems clear that the encylopedia's voice can be used to describe Rosas as a "dictator" without attribution. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires the sources to be identified only when the viewpoint is from biased sources, or if the viewpoint is a minority. For purposes of balance, however, the "is a dictator" statement can be followed by something like "Some historians such as Galvez suggest that Rosas did not abuse his powers, but merely accepted them because they were the only practical way to govern ...". If there is a genuine dichotomy of views (that is, if historians fall generally into two camps) that can be stated as well ("There are two views ..") but it should be made clear that the "is a dictator" is the mainstream view. The large number of reputable sources that plainly use the word "dictator" cannot be ignored simply because some historians disagree. WP:NPOV policy requires that the encyclopedia represent the viewpoint of the historians roughly in proportion to the number of neutral historians that hold the view. The "is a dictator" view is plainly the mainstream view, and the encyclopedia must represent it as such. --Noleander (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero: You suggest that you have more sources. But it is not the quantity of sources that counts, it is the quality. If you have additional sources that provide additional support for "was not a dictator" viewpoint, I suggest that you limit it to sources that have the following attributes:

1) Written by a modern historian (after 1960 or so)

2) Author's primary expertise is Latin American history

3) Published by a reputable publisher, preferably a University press

4) Written by an unbiased, neutral scholar

The sources provided above in the "is a dictator" list include books from Stanford Univ press, Harvard, etc. These are the sorts of sources that are needed. Spanish-language sources, of course, are fine, but they must meet that same level of professionalism and detachment to outweigh the "is a dictator" sources. --Noleander (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What would you want, exactly? Something like the president of the National Library acknowledging a paradign shift, accepting that the former revisionism is currently incorporated into the standard academic works, that the dichotomy “academic history vs. revisionism” is already settled? I have done that already, at the “Legacy” thread, right above this one. Horacio González is the president of the National Library. Fernando Devoto is a teacher of historiography at the University of Philosophy and words. Félix Luna is also a university teacher, Secretary of Culture of Buenos Aires, and received the Konex Award.

Let's check now the book "Imposturas Históricas e identidad nacional" by Marcelo Lascano. Lascano is a teacher at the University of Buenos Aires, director of the publisher Eudeba, member of the CONICET, and lecturer at the University of Kansas, the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh (United States), University of Guadalajara (Mexico), Madrid, Toledo and Palencia (Spain) and the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in Brazil.

In relation to revisionism, he wrote “’’Revisionism exists because several aspects of the Argentine history were concealed or archly interpreted, not with a will of divulguing the past according to rationales of faithfulness with the events and their straight interpretation, but for subaltern purposes’’”. “The grievances and discrimation suffered by revisionism are incompatible with the scientific spirit. The reason is really simple. History does not need to lack flexibility. Their investigations, feats and conclusions must be always open to the possibilities offered by new elements of judgement, capable to confirm or rectify their discoveries according to the advances of other auxiliar sciences’’” In reference to foreign author as those cited here, he does not say they are biased: he says that their works are innacurate because of being based on outdated Argentine works. He cites a work from the university of Yale and says “’’This perspective, definitely partial and mistaken, is pathetic, as we shall see. An intellectual unsuspectd of bias falls victim of the official version of history. To silence or stain Rosas, traditional historiography has made so deep effords to ratify a biased interpretation of the Argentine past that it managed to misdirect the judgement of a major researcher. Otherwise, Díaz Alejandro could not have omited the decisive influence of the international wars in the national economy of the time, or recognized and undeniable productive feats. Ommisions and underestimations of this kind are present in a huge bibliography’’”. The author is not revisionist, he specifically denied being so, and remember again the credentials I mentioned first. If most bibliography in English is outdated, we should not priviledge it merely because it’s in English, we try to avoid systemic bias. Note, for instance, the huge similarities between the texts of Lynch and Bethell that Lecen pointed himself at your talk page (I pointed a similar thing about another text of Lynch in this talk page). He finds that “amazing”, I find that rather unprofessional. A historian’s work builds upon previous historian’s works, but not this way: he must check what others said, and then check the sources of this other historian, and the sources of the previous one, all the way to the primary sources. And if the path can not be completed, then it must be explicitly noted that way: if X historian said something based on Y document, and the Y document is now destroyed or lost, then the historian who reads X must make this scenario transparent to the reader and peers. It is not acceptable to simply copy and paste texts of others, taking them as ultimately correct and without checking for himself. Lynch may not be biased himself, but if he simply repeats what someone else said, he would unintentionally carry on the bias or mistakes of the original writer. That’s the main diference between a historian and a divulgator of history. Those are the ommisions and underestimations that Lascano talks about.

As for Félix Luna, let’s expand the quote. “’’Facing the antirosist thesis of academics and the rosist revisionist antithesis, inevitably it had to emerge the synthesis that acknowledges the positive of both ones. I believe that this synthesis has come. Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance. It is very difficult to make an overall judgment of the Restorer. To formulate it, means to fall into unfair generalizations, and worse, judge a man of the past through modern standards. Can we consider the respect held for human life in those tremendous decades, according to our modern sensitivity? Is it possible to understand the danger of national disintegration or severe impairment of our independence, when such dangers seem unthinkable today? Until recently, to judge Rosas kindly meant, for vast and powerful sectors, to exert a shameful complicity with all forms of despotism, it implied approval of political authoritarianism, impairing the freedom, disregard for life and man’s dignity. On the other side and simultaneously, to severely prosecute Rosas automatically turned those who did it in traitors and posthumous partners of those Argentines who allied with foreigners in their antirosist fervor. Of course, that is not a way to make history’’”. (book “Con Rosas o contra Rosas”, 2010)

Luis Alberto Romero, leader historian of the CONICET, the University San Martín and the UBA, wrote this. “’’Historical revisionism, a historiographical movement that defied that perspective, added original causes – a romantic idea of the people, a hostile perspective of Britain, reinvidicaton of Rosas and caudillos – but ultimately it was built over similar premises, and when it was traducted for the schools it was as a moderate and pacific version, complementary rather than alternative of the dominant one’’”.

In short: all academic authorities of Argentine history, the place that makes the deepest and most detailed works about the history of Argentina, agree that revisionism had made good points and that it was incorporated into the standard view of Argentine history. On the other side, we have a foreign author saying that revisionism is a “hindrance”. Should we take him into account, over the Argentine authorities? Well, if an Argentine author defied the American consensus about people as Lincoln or Robert Lee, I would favor the local sources as well.

As for the use or no use of the word “dictator”, have in mind that there are two issues to take into account. Is the word being explicitly used as a form of repudiation, or merely as a common word, easily replaceable by others? For the first case, I think it is sufficiently proved that that’s not the standard in Argentine historiography. For the second case, Wikipedia has its own style rules, and chooses to avoid using words that label. Other books may not follow the same style rule, so a mere blind search for the term “dictator” in works about Rosas is misleading. To say “Rosas was a dictator” in Wikipedia’s voice, it should be an universally held perspective. More than mere ocurrences of “Rosas was a dictator” or “Rosas’ dictatorship” within author texts, we should seek authors pointing which is the consensus towards Rosas, rather than coming to that conclusion ourselves (which would be a form of original research). More than authors talking about Rosas himself, we should focus on authors talking about the historiography of Rosas (a topic in itself) to come to a conclusion over that issue. Did Lecen provide a source that says that Rosas is universally despised? No. Did I provide a source that says that Rosas is not despised? Yes, several.

By the way, Lecen, keep the discussion here, don't go to the other user's talk pages to try to convince them personally by showing your own version of things. I would have to do the same as well, so that Noleander has the full picture... and basically duplicate the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

John Lynch wrote the first chapter of Leslie Bethell's Argentina Since Independence. That's why that book and Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentine Caudillo have both almost the same text. Anyone with the slightest knowledge in Latin American historiography would know that Bethell acts as the supervisor in his works, which are written by the most respected historians in each field. In other words: Bethell, probably the most respected English speaking Latin Americanist, backed Lynch's view of Argentina's early history. --Lecen (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest knowledge in Latin American history would know that discussions about Rosas' character, including whether he is a dictator or not, is debated and subject to personal POV.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the point. In any case, avoiding to label Rosas as a dictator does not equal being against that point of view, it merely means that Wikipedia does not engage in that dispute, as neither modern Argentine historians do, as pointed in my previous post. As for Lynch and Bethell, I don't feel the urgency of checking their works: none of the books I have seen detailing the historiography of Rosas even considered them worth of a single mention. Lynch himself seems to confirm it in the preface of his book: "In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, fought him, traded with him and finally rescued him". Which means that he's the most respected historian in a field (English-speaking historiography of Rosas) where nobody else make any serious study. Sounds like very little, then. If there is a disagreement between him and the historiography that does study Rosas in full detail, it's clear that we should dismiss him and favor the more detailed works. Besides, his book was originally named "Argentine dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas", and in modern editions it was renamed as "Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas". Sounds as if even Lynch agrees that the term is contentious. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for an RfC? - I think I've done all I can from a 3O role. The next step is probably an WP:RFC, which would get more editors involved. The RfC question could be "Should the article (in the encyclopedia's voice) describe Rosas as a 'dictator'?". My personal opinion, from the sources listed above, is that the majority of sources do use that term in a descriptive sense, and that the sources that rebut the term are in the minority; so the term can be used in the encyclopedia's voice. Every time a source has been requested to rebut the term "dictator", all I've seen (so far) is non-reliable sources, or vague hand-waving, or TLDR essays on revisionism. If anyone needs help formatting an RfC, I can provide assistance. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another approach here, rather than doing an RfC, is to insert a paragraph (or section) into the article discussing whether or not Rosas was a dictator. Right now, the article is mostly silent on the issue. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV can be used, and historians from both POVs can be identified to support both "he was a dictator" and "he was not". That should be done in the short term until the "in encyclopedias voice" issue is figured out. --Noleander (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time, Noleander. I appreciate your sincere effort to help. --Lecen (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That was certainly rude, Noleander. You requested sources from the highest academics rejecting the rejection to Rosas, I bringed exactly that (typing them myself, as I have them in printed books), and you reply that you didn't even read them. What else where you expecting? A counter-list of random and descontextualized minor quotes from semi-related books, as the one made by Lecen, pointing authors that make passing-by mentions of Rosas without using word "dictator"? I can easily do that as well. Cambalachero (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What confuses me is exactly what Lecen wants for this article to include. To be exact, Rosas was a dictator of what?

Juan Manuel de Rosas was governor of the Buenos Aires province. That was his legal title. Does he want it changed to "dictator of Buenos Aires"?

Juan Manuel de Rosas was Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation, again his legal title. Does he want it changed to "dictator of the Argentine Confederation"?

If Lecen gets away with his "most historians consider Rosas to be a dictator", where exactly does he plan to include that into the article? At most, it would be an instance within a much wider discussion of Rosas' character during his second government.

Please clarify, Lecen.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lecen's list

Let's make a deeper consideration of the google hits compiled by Lecen

• A) "contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree". Only certain contemporaries. Many others (mainly San Martín) supported Rosas. Vocal critics and enemies of Rosas, such as Sarmiento, Alberdi and Urquiza, changed their minds some time later. And historians... which historians? English-speaking historians, that Lynch himself says that they have forgoten Rosas completely? Argentine historians, in defiance of the Argentine historians themselves as cited?
• B) Passing-by comment in a book that talks about houses of Buenos Aires
• C) "Concise Encyclopeida Of World History". Rosas is mentioned in a passing-by manner in a work with a much larger scope. The author has no expertise on the particular topic... which can be easily pointed in that Justo José de Urquiza was incorrectly named "Juan José de Urquiza".
• D) The sentence is from a passing-by entry in a mere timeline
• E) The book is not about Rosas but about the War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay, more than a decade after Rosas left Argentina.
• F) That seems like a tourist brochure. The WHOLE history of Argentina is narrated in just 10 pages (including several images, so the actual text is even smaller than that).
• G) Again, a book with an overly too general topic (the military history of all of latin america, from Spanish colonization to modern day). 600 pages for all, and only 13 for the period of Rosas. I can't check the content because the google book preview is not available, but seems too little in comparison with books that have a 600 pages size on the specific topic of Rosas
• H) Another book about the War of the Triple Alliance. Wrong country, wrong time period.
• I) Same than H)
• J) Passing-by comment in a book about the Empire of Brazil. Again, wrong country.
• K) Same than J)
• L) Same than H)
• M) No elaboration on the topic, trivial use of the word.
• N) Does not use the magic word, does it?
• O) I can't see further context: the book does not allow previews in Google books, and a search in google for the quote given does not reveal anything. Still, it seems misleading: for the layman it reads as if Rosas was responsible of the death of Dorrego and the exiles of San Martín and Rivadavia, which are none the case.

In short: the only work specifically about Rosas mentioned by Lecen is Lynch's work. Lynch says himself in the preface "In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten", and so far it seems he is right. Everything else in the list are passing-by comments in works of much larger or different scopes, none of them devoted specifically to the study of Rosas. It seems hard and even pointless to seek a consensus between English-speaking historians about Rosas, when there is a single one working specifically on him. It may seem like a highly preferable option to work with another body of historians, who do work in a steady manner on this topic, even if that means dealing with the language barrier, and favor their consensus.

Note as well that only I), J) and K) are publishes by a University Press. It can be easy for the layman to see a list like this, see a pair of "University Press" things, and misunderstand that all the books have such publication. Cambalachero (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a look at sources that focus in the history of Argentina, then (by order that they were published).

• "Buenos Aires hastened to renominate Rosas as governor. He requested and received renewed dictatorial authority, investing him with the 'plenitude of the public power' (suma del poder público)"; "Throughout the Rosas years... the government made liberal use of terror and assassination. Scores of its opponents perished by throat-cutting at the hands of the mazorca." Source: page 106 of Rock, David. Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987 ISBN 0-520-06178-0
• "...Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator who dominated Argentine politics from 1829 to 1852."; "More sinister was Rosas' increasing use of terror and violence to impose his will." Source: pages 113 and 120 of Shumay, Nicolas. The Invention of Argentina. Los Angeles: University of Californa Press, 1993 ISBN 0-520-08284-2
• "It was no ordinary election, for the new governor was given dictatorial powers..."; "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government, to eliminate enemies, to discipline dissidents..." Source: pages 20 and 29 of Bethell, Leslie. Argentina since independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 ISBN 0-521-43376-2
• "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government to eliminate enemies..." (page 96) "Rosas was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree." (page 118) Source: Lynch, John. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. 2 ed. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2001 ISBN 0-8420-2897-8
• "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..." and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance." Source: pages 47 and 57 of Lewis, Daniel K. The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 ISBN 1-4039-6254-5
• "The first, written by Rosas himself, shows an angry dictator using force and terror to impose his authority."; "Politicaly, the nineteenth century was the age of the caudillo, a term best translated as 'Latin American dictator'." Source: pages 72 and 73 of Clayton, Lawrence A.; Michael L. Conniff. A History of Modern Latin America. 2nd Ed. Belmont, California: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center, 2005 ISBN 0-534-62158-9
• "Rosas was elected governor of the province of Buenos Aires in 1829, putting in place an authoritarian regime (and repressing political opponents) ... Rosas used the opportunity to build a powerful dictatorial regime. Backed by the army and hos own police force (the mazorca), Rosas managed to hold power until 1852." Source: page 28 of Edwards, Todd L. Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2008 ISBN 978-1-85109-986-3

There you go. The main books sold by U.S. Amazon about Argentine history. They all agree that Rosas was a dictator and that he used terrorism to rule. --Lecen (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

War of the Confederation

According to the main article (War of the Confederation), it was Argentina who declared war ([25]). Yet, this article has the following sentence:

• "Andrés de Santa Cruz, protector of the Peru–Bolivian Confederation, declared the War of the Confederation against Argentina and Chile."

This is probably worth discussing. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas: slave owner

The lead says: "Although slavery was not abolished during his rule, Rosas sponsored liberal policies allowing them greater liberties, which angered the neighboring Empire of Brazil." The truth:

• "Rosas was a slave owner." (p.53)
• "Rosas bought slaves for himself and the Anchorenas. In the period 1816-1822, he acquired three slaves in Santa Fe; the Anchorenas bought three also. In 1822-1823, Rosas bought fifiteen slaves for Anchorena estancias, and in 1828, he made further purchases. On the estancias Los Cerrillos and San Martín alone he had thirty-four slaves." (pp.53-54)

Note: The Anchorena family was partner of Rosas. They bough several farms (called "estancias" in Spanish) together.

• "He was severe in his treatment of slaves, and he favored the lash to keep them obedient and preserve social order." (p.54)
• "Yet in the final analysis the demagogy of Rosas among the blacks and mulattoes did nothing to alter their position in the society around them." (p.56)

Source: Lynch, John (2001). Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas (2 ed.). Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2897-8

Just another fine example of how biased and badly written this article has become. --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. Rosas was not governor at the time period you mention, just a rancher like all the others. I have added a mention of this to the "Early life" section. Cambalachero (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: opinions of third parties

Here is the place for neutral third parties to make their own comments. --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Have been reading through this. Just to check on my understanding: the quotes from Manuel Gálvez and Julio Irazusta above; are these the same as Manuel Gálvez and Julio Irazusta? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Use of Nationalist/Revisionist sources on Juan Manuel de Rosas

There is an ongoing dispute on this article in relation to its content, neutrality and use of sources. Several attempts have been tried (Third opinion, dispute resolution noticeboard and mediation), all in vain. The main issues that need to be resolved are:

1. Are Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist works legitimate to be used when writing this article?
2. How, and where, should the article Juan Manuel de Rosas mention the different views of Rosas?

The two clashing point of views that are the cause of this present dispute can be seen below:

• Lecen's point of view opposing the inclusion of Argentine revisionist sources can be seen here.
• Cambalachero's and MarshalN20's point of view supporting the inclusion of Argentine revisionist sources can be seen spread above (see Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article).

Please, read carefully what has been said by both parties before sharing your opinion. --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The "all in vain" claim made by Lecen is an exaggeration. I ask the RfC commentators to please also review the opinions of other users regarding this discussion:

• Go Phightins (Mediator, [26]): "I advocated your position [MarshalN20] and refuted his [Lecen], for the most part, in the DRN."
• Amadscientist (commentator, [27]): "[M]y intitial concern is balance by Lecen. The editor seems to have more than a less than disinterested POV on the subject and it does certainly show in the editors remarks, posts and requests. The first source I found is also the first source prsented in the Third Opinion and appears terribly cherry picked."
• Binksternet (commentator, [28]): "Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly 'Rosas was not a dictator'."
• Wdford (commentator, [29]): "It seems to me just from this thread that a number of sources do not regard Rosas as a dictator. On that basis alone, I feel we should have a statement that "some see him as a dictator and others as something else". [...] I would recommend that we therefore mention that both opinions exist re Rosas, and hopefully the article contains enough background as to let the reader understand both perspectives in his original historical context."

You can review the full context of these messages through the links provided by Lecen and myself. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Revisionist narratives that go against overwhelming historical consensus are by definition WP:FRINGE, and it is almost always a case of assigning undue weight to such viewpoints by reflecting them in the text of articles. Such revisionist sources are fine for articles that cover a notable revisionist movement itself and its aims/scope, but not as views to be reflected in or as citations for mainstream articles. If a revisionist viewpoint has garnered widespread support (and the view that Rosas was not a dictator clearly has not), then it may be worthy of an explanatory footnote. Despite what some have suggested, reducing an article to an unreadable series of "Faction A says" vs. "Faction B says" statements is neither required, nor desirable, unless the split between scholars has large backing on either side (again, that is not the case here). There is an unending stream of this type of provocative, populist, but ultimately insupportable, publication. Revisionism usually ends on the junk-pile of apologetics rather quickly along with theories that extraterrestrials built the pyramids, that Jews started WWII, ideological or hatchet-job bios, wild claims by authors (even scholars) trying to make a name or a few extra dollars, etc. These should not form the bases for what articles say: including such material is a certain way to reduce Wikipedia to an irrelevant and unreliable encyclopedial resource. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a whitewashed view of Rosas as a benign, even heroic, figure is completely out of step with the English language scholarship, other encyclopedia articles, contemporary accounts (including Rosas' own statements), etc. The situation here is identical with similar efforts to introduce fringe views into other articles, and the solution is the same as well. Just because one can find historians who paint Stalin as just a misunderstood nice guy doesn't mean that sort of view deserves any place in Wikipedia articles. • Astynax ^talk 08:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to your comment, but I will not (to avoid conflicts with Lecen). Instead, let's listen to an expert:

• Horacio Gonzales (President, National Library of the Argentine Republic): "The Rosist historical revisionism, in its variants republican conservative, ultramontana apostolic, nationalist catholic, nationalist populist and nationalist left-wing, [...] is a movement widely present in public conscience and in the communications media. From being the second voice, never weak, of historiographical interpretations, it has already become the primary voice." (Spanish: "El revisionismo histórico rosista, en sus variantes republicana conservadora, ultramontana apostólica, nacionalista católica, nacionalista popular y nacionalista de izquierda, y en sus estilos más o menos documentalistas o legendarios, plebeyos o aristocráticos, es un movimiento publicístico ampliamente vigente en la conciencia pública y en los medios de comunicación. De ser la segunda voz, nunca endeble, de las interpretaciones historiográficas, ha pasado a ser ya la primera.")

The full text (in Spanish) can be accessed through this link ([30]; November 23, 2010). The source demonstrates that WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Revisionist views are based in populist and/or political, not scholarly, phenomena. We don't jump on the bandwagon just because something captures the popular imagination and we do not write articles in a way that portrays such views as established fact. Were revisionism allowed to pollute articles, we would have to allow that the CIA may have killed JFK, that the Apollo Moon landings never took place outside a film studio, that extraterrestrials constructed the Nazca Line figures, or any of thousands of other baseless-though-popular travesties. This type of populist "second voice" is exactly the sort of thing WP:FRINGE is meant to prevent. If the sanitized view of Rosas is now being taught as fact in Argentina, then that would make a valuable footnote (especially if the nationalist, political motivation is made clear as in Gonzales' statement), but no mainstream article should be written in a way to lend credence to such views or to in any way imply that they are historical fact. • Astynax ^talk 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm basically with Astynax on this one. It should absolutely be footnoted, and the context of that footnote explained, but I'm simply not seeing widespread examples above that would discount applying the conventional historical terminology in respect of Rosas. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Astynax's understanding of the quote. Gonzales pretty much associates the revisionist movement with nationalism (not populism). Moreover, I request the following sources be made available:

• Astynax claims that revisionists are "not scholarly". Where is the source for this claim?
• Where is the source that demonstrates the "sanitized view of Rosas" is only mainstream in Argentina?

Again, the Gonzales quote pretty much denies any claim of WP:FRINGE. According to the source, Rosas "revisionism" is (in modern historiography) mainstream with the traditional history. I really would like to see a source that denies the Gonzales claim, mainly because that is what WP:VERIFY requires. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Important note: Horacio Gonzalez, as seen in the link provided by MarshalN20 above, is a sociologist, not a historian. Also, the link provided is not a book, nor a doctorate thesis, nor a specialized journal, nor anything alike, but a newspaper article. And the newspaper used as "source" by MarshalN20? It is the Página/12, part of the Kirchnerism, itself an offshoot of the Peronism, itself an heir of... the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism. More biased than that only if it had been written by Rosas himself. Lastly, MarshalN20 asked for sources. There are plenty in my sandbox: no book published in English in the last 25 years has mentioned Argentine revisionism as an alternative and credible view regarding Rosas. The few who did mention Argentine revisionism, talked about its political and authoritarian goals. --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, your list of sources amounts to nothing more than WP:OR when you try to use them to reach a personal conclusion. They would be useful if no reliable claim existed with regards to the mainstream view; but such a claim does exist (and was made by Horacio González).

Gonzales' title as president of a renown national library weighs much more than his education as a sociologist. Also, please read ad hominem.

The actual source is Horacio Gonzales, not a journalist from the newspaper.

Instead of uselessly trying to discredit Gonzales, how about you present sources that validate the claims you are making?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20 said: "I disagree with Astynax's understanding of the quote. Gonzales pretty much associates the revisionist movement with nationalism (not populism)." Yes, you did say "nationalism" and nationalist revisionism has the same problems as other fringe viewpoints which are indeed outside the mainstream of scholarship. I apologize if you were confused by my reference to "scholarly" or "scholarship", but I am referring to scholars in the field of history. History ideally should be written free of nationalist/political biases, a hinderance with which it constantly struggles. Recent history is rife with attempts by political and nationalist movements to rewrite history according to their worldviews, and it is a strange suggestion that articles should give weight to such deeply flawed methodology. • Astynax ^talk 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I love your idealism, but that's nothing more than hopeful dreams.

1. Historians don't own history. They are not the only scholars with the right to analyze history.
2. People who write history, and the people they study, are all biased.
3. Historical revisionism (new ideas replacing the old) is a common process in the field of history.

In the case of Juan Manuel de Rosas, his "traditional" history was written by his political opponents. The "revisionist history" was primarily written by his supporters. While "revisionism" may have been fringe back in the early 20th century, this is certainly not true for the 21st century. The revisionist history has, as Gonzales notes, already become mainstream (in equal balance with the traditional). You seem to think that the title "revisionist" automatically qualifies as "fringe", but such an assumption is completely incorrect.

Lastly, and most importantly, Horacio Gonzales' role as the presiding librarian of Argentina's national library places him in the best position to analyze the current status of literature in the topic of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Up to now, none of you have provided a counter-claim from another reliable source.

All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm back... and I'm really disappointed by all this. The page linked up there is just an initial draft, which I could not complete, as noted by the template (and it is precisely because I realized that I could not complete it back then that I mentioned that I had to be absent for a pair of weeks). I never said it was ready, yet Lecen shows it here as if it was, forcing a straw man argument out of it (an incomplete draft will always look less convincing than a complete one). And worse, he tooks advantage of my absence, calling for this RFC when I was absent and wouldn't be able to reply to anything. And he even starts an edit war to attribute those ideas to MarshalN20 as well, despite his explicit refusal, as he did not take part in its writing at all. This clearly breaks the rule that the opening must be neutral. So, as the draft does not represent him (as he said) and neither me (because it's not complete) and I never said it was ready for using like this, I will remove it to prevent further misuse. Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I was notified of this discussion by Astynax. There seem to be two bases of dispute here.

One, is this material sufficiently notable to be present in wikipedia. Maybe/probably. We do have any number of articles on subjects of revisionist history around here, ranging from Sexuality of Jesus or Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, to Christ myth theory, to any number of articles on specific books which propose fringe or alterntive theories. Certainly, I can and do see that, if the individual works mentioning this theory individually meet notability requirements, they could have separate articles, or content in the articles on, perhaps, the author. And if the idea of his being a dictator, as an idea, is notability as per WP:NOTABILITY, and the various proponents of such thinking are discussed in those sources, then it could certainly be the case that there might be a basis for an article on Rosas as dictator, if there really is sufficient encyclopedic content for it to exist as a separate article.

Regarding the second point, honestly, the best way to proceed here, regarding how much weight to give the subject in this article, is to determine how much weight, if any, it receives in existing reference sources. I see at least 6 encyclopedias of Argentine biography listed in a 1986 guide to reference works I have in front of me, and I am certain that others have been published since then. I also am rather sure that the subject is discussed in encyclopedias relevant to Argentina as a whole, and probably other reference works relevant to his specific time and era. It can sometimes be difficult to determine, but the best way to go would probably be to look at the most recent highly regarded sources, and see what if any weight they give this subject. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

An alternative approach

Having been away from this whole discussion for some time, I have noticed a detail: it has long departed from the actual article, to discuss things that are not part of it and likely will never be. Before continuing an infinite discussion about the background of Argentine historians, let's step back and consider a detail: what are we actually discussing about, as the article is concerned? If you check it, right now the only content referenced in a revisionist book is Rosas' infancy.

As of 2013, the only real difference between pro-Rosas authors, anti-Rosas authors and neutral authors are the opinions and analysis of the things that took place during his government. The documented facts themselves are well known and not disputed (a huge difference with other revisionisms, such as those of the Apollo mission or the ancient astronauts theories mentioned earlier). Let's say we took a pro-Rosas book, write down all the important facts contained in it, and filter all the author's opinions, analysis and trivial facts mentioned to advance the point that Rosas was a good guy. Now, let's take an anti-Rosas book, write down all the important facts contained in it, and filter all the author's opinions, analysis and trivial facts mentioned to advance the point that Rosas was a bad guy (note that I'm not making up any new process, filtering the points of view contained in the sources is an established policy). In both cases, the resulting text would be basically the same. For example, let's consider the end of his first term: he could have run for a second, but did not. A pro-Rosas author would say that it was because he was an unambitious man who wanted to return to his simple life in the farm. An anti-Rosas author would see a machiavellian plot to return to power later. But in any case, the cleansed fact is the same: that Rosas did not run for a second term.

For clarity, let's say this in a few words: There are no disputes about facts. Nobody says that something did or didn't happen, against things said by others. The only disputes are about opinions.

There are two ways to deal with this. We can mention the facts and describe the divergent analysis for each one that we encounter, or we can simply stick to the facts and avoid the opinions about them. It can be easier to go the second route, as Astynax has suggested in his first post.

As for the discussion about historians, there is an important distinction to make: although the layman may confuse them, it's not the same a historian than a divulgative writer writing about history. The difference is not in a degree or a recognition, but in the method employed to generate his work. A divulgative writer aims to the main public with no or limited information about a historical topic. He reads a number of books, combines them, and produces an engaging and interesting answer for "Who was X man?" or "What happened during Y event?". A historian's job is a bit more complicated. When he reads a book that makes a bold claim about the topic, he does not accept it at face value: he will take note of which is the source cited by the author for that claim, and check it himself. Is it another book? Then he will check that book, and check the reference contained in that book, and repeat the cycle all the way to the primary source, if possible. If the claim is confirmed, then it's good to go. But many things can go wrong, that the historian will notice, whereas a divulgative writer would not. Misquotation of sources or authors (sometimes they are trival mistakes, but sometimes a cleverly changed word changes the meaning). Chains of references that end in an author who makes a bold claim that is supposed to be true "because I, the author, say so". Ommited contexts that are an important influence to the development of the events. Claims whose ultimate primary source has a doubtful reputation (for example, a man talking about things he couldn't possibly know for certain). And so on... Having said that, back to the topic. To be a historian writing about Rosas, it is needed to come to Argentina and spend a lot of time checking the General Archive of the Nation and similar locations. Otherwise, a foreign writer who merely repeats what he saw at other books is working as a divulgator. Note that, when we talk about topics that span across several countries, a writer may be both things, according to the subtopic of the main topic. A British or French historian that never checked Argentine archives would be a divulgator when he talks about Rosas, but he would be a proper historian when he talks about the involvement of his nation in the wars against Rosas, if he checked his local archives (and the same is true for Argentine authors who write about Rosas and did not check Uruguayan, British or French archives).

Finally, my proposal. There's a book by Isidoro Ruiz Moreno that I listed in the references, and which I began to use at some sections (see his profile here). Edited in 2006, almost 800 pages for the 1831-1853 period, filled of plethora of quoted primary sources to back every claim, critical of Rosas, and written by a member of the National Academy of History of Argentina. Leaving aside revisionist authors for the sake of this discussion, I think it is the most solid book on the topic, either in Spanish or in English. I may start by writing the article reflecting the content of this book, as described earlier (that is, sticking to the facts and leaving aside opinions, analysis, trivial information, or overdetail that may be better for more specific articles). Then, we may consider the content of other books, analyzing author and claim on a case-by-case basis. Is this proposal acceptable? Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I encourage all editors to put aside their own agendas and focus on improving the article so it is more encyclopedic. The article already has an entire section "Criticism and historical perspective" which is supposed to be giving readers an analysis of how some historians view JMR as a dictator, and some do not, and some are inbetween. That section is horrible: it contains a huge quote from some minor contemporary, yet gives virtually no insight into the dictator/not issues. If editors would shift away from the talk page and actually start editing the article in an unbiased way (start with that Criticism section) things would go a lot smoother. --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, Noleander. It's impossible to improve the article about him with a "criticism" section. As Astynax correctly pointed out above: "Despite what some have suggested, reducing an article to an unreadable series of 'Faction A says' vs. 'Faction B says' statements is neither required, nor desirable, unless the split between scholars has large backing on either side (again, that is not the case here)." That's not how it should work. And the reason to why I didn't start improving the article it's because I know that every single edit I made will be either reverted or changed by Cambalachero and MarshalN20.

  You said "...of how some historians view JMR as a dictator, and some do not, and some are inbetween". I still can't understand why most people haven't figured it out what it's going on in here after so long. There are NO historians who regard Rosas "inbetween" or "not" a dictator. Even Argentine revisionist historians regard him a dictator. What differs them from everyone else is that they see Rosas' dictatorship in a positive light. Did you see Cambalachero and MarshalN20 brign any book that says that he was not a dictator? I really syggest you take a look at my sandbox. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)