Talk:Facundo

NPOV

The article is blatantly POV, pushing Sarmiento's interpretation of Argentine history as fact. Sarmiento's scholarship has come under intense criticism since the liberal standard for American history that he and Bartolomé Mitre helped established began to be reviewed in the early 20th century; there is an extensive history of Argentine historical revisionism that has challenged the validity of his data, his methods and his interpretation, to the point of completely subverting it. This should be mentioned, and socio-historical speculation about "caudillos" be attributed to Sarmiento as its author, not stated as fact; authoritarianism and bloodshed were attributes of the liberal governments heralded by Sarmiento as much as their opponent's (Sarmiento himself advised Mitre, in a letter already widely known in their own time, not to spare gaucho blood to pacify the land, as it is the only thing human abouth them). Taragüí @ 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Taragui is right, and more generally speaking, the entry is a bit thin. Much contextualization is needed. ProfesoraCero - 23:52 CST, 1 March 2006

I added to the article, trying make the article present the books writings more as the opinion of a man. I believe I was successful. I removed the NPOV tag. If anyone disagrees, do not hesistate to add the tag back in and talk about it here. Stop Me Now! 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot to remove the NPOV tag by mistake. I agree with you that it reads NPOV now... removed tag QuiteUnusual 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rating

I've just rated this "high" importance, as one of the foundational texts of Latin American literature. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem and the FA-Team

To assist WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem in its drive to bring this article to Featured status, a number of experienced editors from the FA-Team have volunteered their editing services to the project. To see which editors are watching this article, click here.

You can contact a specific editor directly by leaving a message on their talk page, or more generally by posting a message here. To do this, click the '+' tab at the top of the page and enter a subject title, and your message, in the editing windows that will appear. Don't forget to finish off by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically add your signature; you need to be logged in for this to work properly.

We're all really enthusiastic about this project, and looking forward to working with you. All the best, The FA-Team 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourced information

This article still desperately needs sourced information! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Status

Hi there! We have been working in this article and I think that we have a good outline, Do we need other topics to get a better status? Hector. Hector Argene (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources, properly referenced. The Civilization and Barbarism section is almost entirely unsourced. Be careful with this! NB for instance that the Moss article (whose journal is missing from the references) appears as two different titles: "World Literature and its Times" and "Latin American Literature and its Times." Getting stuff like this right now will save you a lot of time later. I made some comments in the References section, such as the fact that you should get hold of the translation of the Ludmer book. Plus you need to develop the synopsis. And think about other themes. But again: research, research, research! This article is moving along, which is great. But it still needs some work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello! We have been working to improve this article. I believe that we have a good outline now. How could we achieve GA status? Bessiec (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you guys have been working hard on this, and it's looking good. Let me ask the FA-Team what they reckon. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

References

There's a real problem with the references here. Again, getting these right will save awful amounts of time in the future. As well as the examples above, for instance, rather than "Ross, "Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism" 18, presumably what's meant is a reference to Ross's translator's introduction. (The reference as it is makes it look as though she had written Facundo herself.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also on the Sorensen, there seems some confusion with an article (that may or may not be being cited): "Reading Sarmiento: Writing the Myths of National Culture," from Sarmiento and His Argentina, edited by Joseph T. Criscenti. Again, this confusion needs to be sorted out. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! We couldn't find ISBNs for both Jorge Newton and Emilio Carrilla. What should we do? Thank you! Bessiec (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The ISBNs are less essential, especially just now. Any confusion as to what exactly is being cited is, however, pretty crucial. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Article progress

Hi all - just dropping by on a whistle-stop tour of my watchlisted MMM articles! You're really getting this article into shape, and your hard work is much appreciated.

A few comments:

• As jbmurray has pointed out above, the article is still under-referenced in places (especially the Themes section). If citations can't be found for the assertions there, from our perspective it's better to remove them than leave them in place; although article coverage may suffer as a result, it's preferable to having unsourced statements that will be challenged when the article is reviewed. This is the biggest difference between writing for Wikipedia and writing for an academic assignment - we don't analyse, we just regurgitate! (ie we can only include what reliable sources have already published).
• Is there more content to come? At the moment, the article is off-balance - by which I mean, there is lots of good information on historical background etc, but not so much on the book itself. The plot synopsis could be expanded (though to no more than 5-600 words), and the Characters and Legacy sections look incomplete.

That'll do for now (!) Once all the content is in place, we can think about polishing the article in preparation for a Good article nomination (if that's the route you decide to follow). I'll be only too happy to get more actively involved at that point; obviously we on the FA-Team can't write the article, but once the subject experts (you!) have bulked it out we can dive in and help take care of formatting, layout, copyediting and other Wikipedia-specific tasks. You've done a fantastic job so far - keep up the good work! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

thank you so much for the help so far. We're planning on including another section once we've semi finished the things we have now. Also will try to cite the work clearly next time. Deeply apologetic. And again, thank you User talk:mjlee27 —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for! You're doing an excellent job. Writing for Wikipedia is a skill in itself, and you've got the research to do on top of that. I'll just keep hovering around for now ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Double references

Just a comment about a couple of places in which you have two citations:

Sarmiento then contrasts Facundo's flag with Argentina's flag which the former represents "Death, fear, hell" [16] and the latter symbolizes "justice, peace, justice" [17] [18]

According to Sarmiento, he believes the murder was plotted by Rosas: "An impartial history still awaits facts and revelations, in order to point its finger at the instigator of the assassins" [20] [21]

These are a little confusing, and I hope you can see why. If I want to know who is being quoted (Sarmiento or Moss and Valestuk in these two instances), the double reference doesn't help me. And if I guess, say, that it's Sarmiento who is writing "justice, peace, justice," then it's not obvious what the Mos and Valestuk reference is adding.

In general, I'd say such double references are a bad idea, for these reasons: they impede clarity. You can sometimes get away with it by being clear in the text itself: "Sarmiento says X; Moss and Valestuk comment Y." But in general it's a decent rule of thumb to avoid them. And an even better general principle to think about whether it is clear what a reference is doing in your text. If not: make it so!

Hope this helps. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Professor, I would try to minimize usage of double references in the future... The examples of double references that you pointed out above, the first reference refers to the quoted phrase and the second reference refers to the whole paragraph. Please tell me how I could improve this. Thank you! Bessiec (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Heya, I don't know what you mean by saying that the second reference "refers to the whole paragraph." It's not obvious what you're drawing from that source. As such, I've just deleted it in each instance. If there is something that you specifically want to take out of the Moss and Valestuk piece, you need to make it clear what it is. Does that make sense? It's important to be specific as well as accurate. (And I'll say it again, this goes for all your term papers etc.; this is not just wikipedia at all.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi professor, "refers to the whole paragraph" means I was paraphrasing Moss and Valestuk piece. I think it is necessary to cite it? Thank you! I'm just really confused...Bessiec (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just that looking at the whole paragraph, this seems to be a summary of Facundo itself. (Which is fine of course.) Unless you are summarizing Moss and Valestuk's summary of Facundo (which wouldn't make much sense), then I don't see what you're getting from them. Do you see? If you are getting something from them, then make it clear. Write something like "Moss and Valestuk argue that..." "Moss and Valustuk suggest... " and tell us clearly what you are taking from them. (Again, this is not simply a wikipedia issues; this applies to how you quote in any paper.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've nominated Facundo for GA nomination as there is a reasonable probability that it will meet a GA reviewer's expectations based on the GA criteria. There is still work to do! However, Facundo is quite good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Please tell us how we could improve! Bessiec (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Further polishing

Hi all! You've done a fantastic job on this article so far, and now we're (hopefully) due for a GA review soon I think it would be a good time to polish up the content. The single biggest remaining task is a copyedit, so we might as well crack on with this asap. I'll make a start today, and post any questions/comments below this section. Please feel free to continue working on the article; the more the merrier ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit questions

Note: I've left the lead until last since it may need to reflect changes in the article text. No point doing it twice ;)

Background

• "one of the foundational works of Spanish American literary history". This quotation needs a direct cite (not sure if it's the ross17 ref a sentence later?)
• "...marks a turning point in the evolution of literature." Is this specifically Latin-American literature, or literature as a whole?
• Why does the critic say it's such an important book?
• "...sets the bases" (used twice). Is there a less-idiomatic way to express this? Maybe "provides the context"?
• "Buenos Aires, was the country's largest and most prosperous city at the time the book was written" needs a citation (and isn't it now?)
• "Beset by Federalist forced," Is there something missing here?
• How accurate is it to describe Rosas as a 'dictator' for his first term in office? This word gives a specific perception quite apart from it's technical meaning, but according to the section Rosas had popular support and voluntarily left his post.
• Is it necessary to mention that there was no middle-class? (And is it accurate? Surely teachers, doctors etc would make up this class?)
• Juan Facundo Quiroga's assasination "promised" anarchy (as a good thing) to avert a Unitarian take-over? I'm not sure I understand what it's getting at; can we phrase this better?

Hello! Thanks for helping us! I have already made the changes! Bessiec (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! More questions to follow... ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Moreover, Facundo provides the context for the study of Latin American culture with its specific geographical condition." I'm still not sure about this sentence - what is it saying?

I think we've got this section into shape now - anything we've missed? EyeSerene^talk 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Yes and we did what you suggested us to do in all other parts as well! Thank you for your help! Bessiec (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much appreciated - it's improving all the time! EyeSerene^talk 09:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

• "The struggle brought military association called montoneras..." I don't really understand this; can it be clarified?
• I've changed the tense to the present - this is the convention for plot summaries.
• The last paragraph of Biography of Juan Facundo Quiroga needs checking: I read the text as saying that it was Facundo who became a Unitarian supporter to opopose Rosas, but I'm not 100% sure this is what was meant?

Additional comments:

• I've used tavern as an English equivalent to pulperia - is this correct, or is there a better term (eg public house)?
• "...Rosas's residence was used as an asylum for the killers." Is it a fact or an allegation? I'm also not convinced this belongs in the synopsis unless it's something Sarmiento mentions in Facundo.
• I think Consequences of Facundo's death could possibly do with an additional citation or two to cover the 'sarcastic comments' remark and the contrasting of France and Argentina.

Hello! According to Facundo, tavern is equivalent to pulperia and I agree using tavern is better. Also, Sarmiento did mention Rosas's residence was used as an asylum for killers in Facundo. Should I cite that? Bessiec (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it was just to get an English equivalent - nothing wrong with using the Spanish term , but we need to explain it too ;) Regarding the asylum bit, if you have a cite, that would be great. I noticed it's cited to Moss & Valestuk, which is why I though maybe it was a bit of extra information not mentioned by Sarmiento. If he says it though, lets keep it in! EyeSerene^talk 19:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Eyeserene! Additional citations were added to "Consequences of Facundo's death" and regarding the asylum sentence, I changed that citation to Sarmiento. So it would look more convincing! again, Thanks for your help!! Bessiec (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me ;) One question: the last two sentences (that begin "France's blockade..." Is this all a direct quote? If so, I think it's long enough that we could format it as a blockquote (I'll do this if you're not sure about the markup). EyeSerene^talk 08:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the last two sentences that begins with "France's blockade..." is a direct quote from the book. :) Bessiec (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've formatted it as above. EyeSerene^talk 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Style

• I was a little unsure about this section - most of it is about genre rather than style, so I've altered the heading slightly. As an aside, we're also going to have to check over the various sections for duplication of content at some point.
• I'm not convinced the Spanish quote brings anything useful to the section, so I've moved it here for now.

  In Spanish: Nunca tomé a Facundo, de Sarmiento, por una obra histórica, ni creo que pueda salir bien librada jugádola en tal respecto. Siempre me pareció una obra literaria, una novela a base histórica.

yes, I thought the original quotes were quite useless.. I'll get rid of them; just wanted to emphasize that they were translated. I guess it's irrelevant.  :) thank you--Mjlee27 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as your source (here Sorensen) has the quotation in English, then you can cite the English and not worry about it. If, however, you are the person doing the translating, then you need to have the original Spanish in a footnote. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've struck my comments above, as I now think we've addressed this. EyeSerene^talk 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Civilization and barbarism

• I've undertaken a fairly extensive re-write of this section, but stalled about four paragraphs in. This needs looking at by someone who has read the book and understands what the text is getting at ;)
• Added a couple of citation needed tags for things that ought to be cited - to be honest, these aren't all, but I don't want to swamp the editors!

does the civilization and barbarism theme go nowhere? How can I improve it? And will search for the information in order to cite. Thank you!--Mjlee27 (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello!! We have edited this section and made it shorter. The content is more precise that before. Could you tell us if there is still problems regarding this section? Thank you very much !! =] Bessiec (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you've done a great job clarifying things. I've passed over this section again with another copyedit, but I think the last paragraph in particular still needs work - I'm not entirely sure what it's saying. I'd be grateful if you could check the rest over too, to make sure I haven't distorted or misunderstood anything. There is still a bit of repetition in there, but I don't think we're far off now. Nice work all! EyeSerene^talk 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello EyeSerene. Thank you so much so far! It's awesome! I deleted the last paragraph; I think it's a bit redundant and therefore irrelevant. Hope this section doesn't come back and haunt me again! ^^--Mjlee27 (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the last paragraph, I added something to clarify meaning. I hope it worked! --Mjlee27 (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic work! I'll mark this as dealt with. EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Writing and power

• "Voice law and voice weapon interlace in the chains of the genre." Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't understand this quotation...
• Again, I can't make sense of some sentences in the final paragraphs. More on this below...

I've added something. I hope now it sort of make sense. I completely forgot to add this part since not everyone read Facundo. Sorry ^^--Mjlee27 (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's much clearer now. The only remaining question I have is with the last sentence: "...shows the essential displacement in cultural absence". I think this needs further explanation. EyeSerene^talk 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A sentence was added to clarify this sentence. Hope that helps... Thanks! Bessiec (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A big help, the statement is clearer now. EyeSerene^talk 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

• "It is valued as highly important since it marks the beginning of the cultural phenomena." Which cultural phenomena?

I've added like two sentences to Legacy part tonight. But since my English ain't that good, I was wondering if someone could check it for me. Please and thank you! I hope this is enough for Legacy or does it seem incomplete? --Mjlee27 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Publication and translation history

• We need to say what the significant changes were between the first and second editions.

That is definitely better. Can we describe why Sarmiento removed two chapters? What did they contain? Had his political views changed, or was there some other reason? EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a small sentence explaining the deletion and the reappearance of the chapters. I hope this clarifies the problem--Mjlee27 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've copyedited, but there seemed to be some confusion between the publications dates (1851 or 1852). I stuck with the 1851 date, but you might need to correct this. EyeSerene^talk 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've completed a first pass, the object of which was to get the text into a reasonably readable condition. I think the next stage, per Awadewit's GA review below, is to look again at the article organisation. There are areas where information is duplicated, so perhaps we could think about how to rationalise the various sections? EyeSerene^talk 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I believe we've reached a point where it might be useful to ask Awadewit to take another look at the article, per her GA review. The prose still needs work in places, and we're a little light on citations, but I think her assessment of our progress would be valuable. Does someone want to drop her a note? EyeSerene^talk 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unitarians are not Unitarians

Language can cause grotesque misunderstandings! To me, a Unitarian is a Christian denomination and a pacifist one at that. I couldn't figure out what they had to do with dictators. Somewhere in the text, I think it ought to spell this out explicitly: "Not to be confused with the Christian denomination, the Unitarian Party was a liberal ...blah blah blah." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is clear enough in the existing text, but maybe it could do with stating more explicitly. Are the Christian denomination that well-known? (I've never heard of them!) EyeSerene^talk 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unitarians - the Christian denomination - are well known! Oddly, some Puritan churches of Mayflower fame in Plymouth, Mass are now Unitarian: First Parish Church. Presidents John Quincy Adams and John Adams were Unitarian. Beatrix Potter's family was Unitarian. Greenpeace was organized in the basement of a Unitarian church: Greenpeace gets its name. No, I'm not Unitarian. But, you can see how I was confused. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does explain it! EyeSerene^talk 13:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that President John Quincy Adams was a unitarian of one sort (died 1848) while pro-American Sarmiento was a unitarian of another sort and wrote Facundo in 1845. This is where conspiracy theories start if one doesn't explicity point out the error. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dropped a note on your talk page re this - thanks! EyeSerene^talk 16:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Map

Following some discussion over at Talk:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, I figured a map on this article might be nice, too. One that showed the area described in the book, the extent of the pampas, etc. Here are a bunch you could choose from, but there are no doubt other possibilities elsewhere. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Could you tell us how we could link an image to our page? Thanks. Bessiec (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Add the code [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|left(or right)|caption]]. Eg. [[Image:Facundo quiroga.jpg|thumb|right|Juan Facundo Quiroga]] would show as

Juan Facundo Quiroga

--220.255.7.218 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture tutorial will help. In a nutshell, find an image link for an image that already works somewhere. Copy the whole thing, and then replace the pieces. First, copy the filename and file extension - Facundo quiroga.jpg - of the file from Wikicommons. Then add the caption - Juan Facundo Quiroga.

[[Image:Facundo quiroga.jpg|thumb|right|Juan Facundo Quiroga]]

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!! Bessiec (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ludmer text

The translation of the Ludmer text *is* from 2002. What needs to be confirmed are the page numbers for the citations from that translation. The book is at Koerner PQ7652 .L813 2002, though it's currently out. It's also at the Vancouver Public Library: 860.9 L94g. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have the book with me since I took it out. I believe I cited the page numbers;however, I will confirm the page numbers but I believe they are correct...hopefully? :) --Mjlee27 (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

whoops! Also the year of publication was incorrect. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will change it right now. It's actually year 2002. --Mjlee27 (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, grand. Just double-check. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

A fascinating and tricky text to write about! Here are my comments:

To pass GA:

• Fill in "citation needed" tags.

• Find a copy editor and have him/her take one sweep. There are vague and wordy structures. Also, some missing periods, etc. Combing over the article sentence by sentence with a good copy editor will bring to light a lot of the issues with the article. Confusing sentences and vague claims will become clear.

• The "Civilization and barbarism" section needs to be rearranged, organized, and focused.

• The theme of dictatorship in Facundo is not really explained in the "Dictatorship" section.

• The theme of "writing and power" in Facundo is not explained in enough detail in its respective section.

• The "Legacy" section is repetitive - be sure that the article presents material only once.

• I would add that in my estimation, this really needs to be beefed up. One of the most important aspects of this text is that it is a founding text, i.e. that it lays the ground for much of subsequent Latin American literature. We've seen this in class particularly for the dictator novel, but this is a text which influences much else besides. González Echevarría opens his introductions stressing this, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After GA:

• I would integrate the "Genre and style" section into the "Synopsis" section. I might also relabel the "Synopsis" section "Description", since it doesn't really seem like a retelling of a plot.

• FWIW, I'd argue against incorporating this section. It would be better to flesh it out. At present there's rather little on "style." But see the amount of time that Ross's translator's introduction spends on the way in which the book is written. This connects to the issue of genre and also to the book's legacy: after all, this is in essence a topical political tract that subsequently came to shape a whole literature. Again, look to the bibliography in the text you have for some clues about this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since it is possible to write more on this topic, I would definitely be in favor of doing that instead. I am therefore with Jbmurray here. The pitfalls of not knowing everything! :) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced the article needs a "Main characters" section. Again, I think some of this material might be better suited to a "Description" section and some of it can be deleted. This is obviously an odd book to write on and doesn't map well on to a novel-like page (see Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark for one example of this kind of article).

• This is an interesting thought, and certainly one to be taken up after GA Review. Of course, the character of Facundo himself is indeed important, though he's not a "character" in any traditional sense. There might be another way of tackling this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is there more scholarship published on this book? I think the editors are going to need more research to do a truly comprehensive article. Either that, or they are going to have to mine other kinds of works looking for stray sentences on Facundo.

I will put this article on hold so that the editors can work on improving the "Themes" section and find a good copy editor. Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've been asked to re-review the article - I will do so sometime today or tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Awadewit has provided a very thoughtful and helpful review. On her final point, let me remind editors that the copy of the text that you have includes (on pp. 24-26) a bibliography that is extensive without being unmanageable, and that is mainly of works in English. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorship subsection

Guys this section really needs work, Awadewid already mentioned that it fails to explain the dictatorship theme in relation to the book, and to that I would add that the examples of dictators are not very good choices. This book was published in 1845 and you begin the section by saying: In post-independence Latin American history..., in contrast, all three chosen examples are quite recent. An argument can perhaps be made for the inclusion of Pinochet since he at least served as inspiration for later writers of dictator novels but Chavez really doesn’t belong (not to mention the fact that calling him a dictator is controversial to say the least...) Also the second paragraph is confusing, it should probably be reworded (plus it needs a citation) PS: Overall the article has improved alot, Keep up the good work! Acer (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Acer! We're going to work on dictator section. My group and I have agreed that the dictator section is rather irrelevant to the book; therefore, we'll make it talk more about Facundo to make it relevant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjlee27 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this section since it's already mentioned in the beginning. And by having it deleted, I think that we are able to avoid irrelevance.--Mjlee27 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've simplified things greatly by doing this. Good idea! EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Indeed the section wasnt very relevant. Acer (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism alert

I have deleted almost the entire "Background" section as it was plagiarized from the Facundo article in Moss and Valestuk. It was stitched together from sentences and phrases in the article. Examples:

• Wikipedia article: In the years between the death of Juan Facundo Quiroga and the publication of Facundo, Juan Manuel de Rosas was granted absolute power over Buenos Aires by the legislature which he reinstated.

• Moss and Valestuk: "Rosas was granted virtually absolute power over Buenos Aires by the grateful legislature that he had reinstated." (173)

• Wikipedia article: The Buenos Aires legislature begged him to resume his position on his own terms, and his terms were absolute power.

• Moss and Valestuk: "the Buenos Aires legislature begged Rosas to resume the governorship on his own terms. His terms were absolute power." (173)

• Wikipedia article: This action roused the ire of the provinces, and civil war was the result.

• Moss and Valestuk: "This action roused the ire of the provinces, and civil war was the result." (172)

I don't need to give anyone another speech on why plagiarism is wrong. Please delete any remaining plagiarism from this article. Note that this article will have to be checked sentence-by-sentence against its sources to ensure that nothing else is plagiarized. I am, obviously, failing this article for GA. Without this section, the article lacks even the broad coverage required for GA. Before any further GA attempt, please have an uninvolved party check the sources against the text of this article to eliminate any lingering concerns that the article is plagiarized. Awadewit (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, thanks for this. As you seem to have the book with you, do you think you could also doublecheck the "Synopsis"? That might explain this thread. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Much more plagiarized material there - I have removed it. Awadewit (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just cut the synopsis. It would seem better, and easier, to start from scratch. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am meeting with the editors tomorrow to talk to them about this. For what it's worth, I'm satisfied that this is an instance of what's sometimes termed "inadvertent" plagiarism. But I'd point out that in fact neither Wikipedia nor UBC make that distinction between the intentional and the inadvertent. Here are some resources:

• http://www.library.ubc.ca/home/plagiarism/
• http://www.arts.ubc.ca/Plagiarism_Avoided.373.0.html
• http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/paraphrase.html

NB it would be good if Wikipedia also perhaps had some resources about this, though its policies are of course clear. Here, for instance, is the site's (co-)founder, Jimbo Wales: "There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square." (found here). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! That's a good catch, Awadewit, thank you. We've clearly got some work ahead of us here, but I would like to reassure the MMM editors that the FA-Team's help and support remains on tap. Please don't be discouraged - it's all part of the learning process, and I totally agree with jbmurray that there was no deliberate intent involved. I'll keep tabs on the article, but if you need anything, you know where my talk page is ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that intent is irrelevant. Plagiarism is a copyright violation and puts Wikipedia at legal risk. That is why it is so serious. Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. There is a difference between plagiarism and copyright violation. One can plagiarize a public domain text. Plagiarizing is to attribute a false author to a work. One may actually have permission from the copyright holder and still commit plagiarism. In the case of this article, it did seem inadvertent as there was proper sourcing - which is how the violation was so easily found - but it lacked the apparatus of quotation marks within the text itself. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely; it's a real and serious legal liability to Wikipedia. This is a key part of editing Wikipedia; it's something we have to be quite sure we get right.

I suspect jbmurray's comments about it being "inadvertent" are more directed at the question of whether the students deliberately tried to fool others by substituting plagiarized material; it sounds like he feels it was, instead, a case where they were unaware that text from other sources needs to be paraphrased and put in their own words. I think this is worth noting because no doubt the students don't want to feel like miscreants: it was apparently just a misunderstanding of the rules. I (and probably all of us) are perfectly willing to take it that way. However, it's one of the most important rules on Wikipedia, and we do have to be very rigorous about it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed to all the above. I pointed out that both for Wikipedia and for our university's plagiarism code, in fact there is no distinction drawn between inadvertent and intentional plagiarism. However, in order to understand how and why plagiarism occurs, and also to rectify the problem, it does help to draw that distinction, amongst other reasons for the ones that Mike observes. I'd also agree that there's a difference between plagiarism and copyright violation. I think it's problematica that on the whole (and I did a search through the site), Wikipedia only views plagiarism though the lens of copyvio. See here, for instance, where under "Plagiarism" we are told "see Copyright." That's wrong, and misleading. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Awadewit. My comment was not intended to downplay the seriousness of the presence of copyvio material. I believe this has arisen here because, during the early development of many of the MMM articles as content was being added, it was often in the form of multiple properly-sourced direct quotations. This, I think, was a natural response from inexperienced editors to our constant insistence on sources for everything! As the articles got to the point where content was largely in place and we were advising on more technical matters, suggestions were made to work the quotations into the text (I certainly remember mentioning this on El Senor Presidente around the time of its GA review). The quotation marks disappeared, but apparently in this article some of the text remained virtually unaltered. There was no intention on the editors' part to deceive - it was just something that should have been mentioned more explicitly at the time, and as someone who was watching Facundo, I have to take part of the blame for this. Serious though it is, once all the instances have been dealt with I think we should move on; the editors have seen a lot of their work (quite rightly) removed, and I'm sure Wikipedia seems like a really discouraging and bewildering place right now. EyeSerene^talk 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good luck!

I see you're getting back on the horse here (to use an appropriate gaucho metaphor)! Again, good luck, guys! And yes, as I see you doing already, if in doubt cite verbatim rather than even attempting to paraphrase. We can work on paraphrase later, and in the process you can see how to do that rather tricky skill properly. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support professor. We must move on otherwise all our hard work will go to waste ^^--Mjlee27 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit!  :)

One little technical thing: it does help when you guys fill out the edit summaries (just below the window in which you add text to the wikipedia), giving others an idea of what you are doing with that particular edit. That way someone can look at the "history" of an article and follow it fairly easily. You often do fill out the edit summary, but I've just noticed that the last few times you haven't so much. Thanks.

(For intance my edit summary here says "that's the spirit and...

Keep it up!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. We'll try to write edit summaries. Thank you for reminding us ^^--Mjlee27 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'my preferences' tab you'll find another tab 'editing'. There is a check box called 'prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'. Check this. Never again will you leave a trail of blank edit summaries. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA nom

Your keeness to repair the damage is pretty obvious. The repairs so far are good enough for a GA nomination. More work needs to be done and a copy edit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wassup, I think it might be good to slow down a bit. Your encouragement is well taken. But this group are still finding their feet again, and still learning about what's expected of them. And we need to go over this with a bit of care and attention. (See also Awadewit's comments above.) I'd say it might be better to wait a couple of days for a GA nom. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I think it's good to nudge, but at this point I'd like to see the editors comfortable with the state of the article before we go on. I'd suggest withdrawing for now. Jbmurray, they have till Sunday night to nominate, is that correct? Mike Christie (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I have given them an extension. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw this listed at GAN and thought I'd take a stab at reviewing it, but it seems pretty obvious that the principle contributors may not think it completely ready for another nomination. It was only failed yesterday, after all. Should I remove it from the list? María (habla conmigo) 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather it were withdrawn. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are placing the bar for GA way too high. This article can pass the critieria for GA. This is what happens when the FA-Team descends on GA :-) If the MMM people ever start to examine all the 'other' GA articles on Wikipedia, I think they might become a bit enraged! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-high standards for Good Articles and yet I'm not a member of the FA Team. What gives? :) Anyway, because jbmurray, one of the main contributors and the leader of the project this falls to, believes that the nom should be withdrawn, I've withdrawn it. Let's let him or one of his students nominate it when they think it's ready. The Literature section at GAN is crowded enough from you guys! María (habla conmigo) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Maria. And thank you, Wassup, for your encouragement and enthusiasm! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK! Sorry María: I didn't mean to label you as a FA-Team person or to suggest that you have low standars! I am, however, concerned that the MMM project is out of alignment with the ethos of GA and Wikipedia. I also dislike the notion of 'leadership' on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an off-shoot of a university class. We are entering the territory of WP:OWN here. It really isn't up to a university class to decided what is or isn't GA ready. It is up to Wikipedia editors. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm less concerned about the article, and more about the MMM editors. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray (talk · contribs), I understand and that is 100% appropriate. However, I'm more concerned with Wikipedia than a univeristy class. Creating a standard for GA that does not exist and will not exist at the end of term does not help Wikipedia. We have 2 million stub, start and b-class articles. We do not need ten perfect articles but 2 million good articles, if you understand my point. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are several interacting imperatives here. This all needs to be teased out in the post-mortem; I think that's going to be interesting. Mike Christie (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wassup, I agree with you that it is up to the Wikipedia editors to decide when to nominate an article or, to be more precise, it is up to the main editors of a particular article, which in this case, happens to be the MMM folk. They are the ones that are adding content and as such, they're the ones that are going to be able to address the issues raised by GA. If they don't feel comfortable with proceeding with the nomination now it really is their choice unless you're planning a trip to the library yourself. The logic is quite simple: GA is going to raise content issues, no one here, apart from the MMM editors, has the necessary books/sources to fix the issues raised. From that we can conclude that the participation of the MMM editors is indispensable to a successful GA nomination. And so, it is pointless to nominate if said editors do not participate in the process. Of course, you could argue that the article meets GA requirements as it is, and that there is no particular reason to treat it any different from other Wikipedia articles. To that I would say that the ultimate goal of any Wikipedia article is not to be a GA or even a FA. The ultimate goal is (to quote the U.S. Army) to be the best that it can be, and if getting a comprehensive, above average GA review will result in a better article in the end, then that is clearly the best option available. Now, after giving you these Wikipedia-related reasons to wait, there is one that for me dwarfs all of the above: It is simply the right thing to do. Acer (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The wiki version of "the right thing to do": WP:IAR :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats the spirit!! :D Acer (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes from copyedit

I've copyedited up through the end of the Synopsis section, and here are some notes.

• The lead doesn't actually see the book is not fiction; this might be worth mentioning since when you say it's a keystone of Latin American literature the natural reader reaction will be that it is fiction.

It is mentioned in the "genre & style" section, would you suggest to mention it again in synopsis? Bessiec (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest putting in a summary bio of Sarmiento; much of this can be summarized from the Sarmiento article; just make sure you copy over their sources and citations too, of course.

Summary bio of Sarmiento is provided in the "characters" section, is it better if we mention it in synopsis again? Thank you! Bessiec (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure who the gauchos are who are referred to in the section on the Argentine Civil War. I think this needs an introductory remark explaining their role; to me a gaucho is the Argentine equivalent of an American cowboy.
• "When the country fell into disorder after Rosas’ resignation, he was once again called to lead the country." This is a bit confusing. I think you mean: "The country fell into disorder after Rosas' resignation in 1832, and in 1935 he was once again called to lead the country", assuming I have those dates right.
• I did quite a bit of rewriting throughout the Argentine context section, so you might want to check that I didn't change the meaning of any of it by mistake. I also noticed that there were a couple of trailing quotation marks in the text, which I removed. Since I did a lot of rewording, this probably isn't an issue, but if anything there should be in quotes, of course please fix that. It looked to me like you'd already done some rewording so we're OK, but I wanted to check.
• "Sarmiento argues that many of the country's problems were caused by Juan Manuel de Rosas, who was a dictator of Argentina at the time, since he managed to take control of Buenos Aires." Why did Rosas's control of Argentina cause the country problems?
• "Sarmiento then describes the four main types of gaucho: "rastreador", "baqueano", the bad "gaucho", and the "cantor". These characterizations of the four different types of gaucho provide awareness and understanding of Argentine leaders, such as Juan Manuel de Rosas." Sarmiento argues that "without which it is impossible to understand our political personages, or the primordial, American character of the bloody struggle that tears apart the Argentine Republic." Several things here:
  • Could you either remove the names, and just say "describes four types of gaucho", or else give a one-word or two word description for each type, as most readers won't know them?
  • The last quote needs a bit of rewording but I'm afraid of mangling the meaning. Would this be accurate:Sarmiento argues that without an understanding of these Argentine character types, "it is impossible to understand our political personages, or the primordial, American character of the bloody struggle that tears apart the Argentine Republic"?
• What does "the animalistic instincts of the rural population led to the loss and dishonor of the civilized cities" mean? That's not quite what you originally wrote -- I copyedited this so I hope I haven't changed the meaning; but I'm not sure what it does mean. Did the rural classes invade and despoil the cities?
• Dorrego wasn't interested in ending barbarisms: do you mean there were atrocities such as massacres? Or do you mean that the rural people were barbarians -- savage and uncivilized -- and he had no interest in improving their level of civilization or education?

I hope these are useful -- feel free to ask for clarification or complain if I've misunderstood something. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

These are extremely useful! Thank you very much ! I've already made all the changes. You suggested of putting a summary bio of Sarmiento in the synopsis. However, we have introduced Sarmiento under the characters section. Would it be repetitive if Sarmiento is mentioned in synopsis? Bessiec (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope Mike doesn't mind if I comment on this. At the moment there is considerable repetition between parts of the Characters section and other sections of the article. My feeling is that the Characters section, since it deals with three historical individuals, might be better focused on giving summary bios and ignoring the way they're portrayed in the book. This would save the repetition (their portrayal in Facundo is well-covered elsewhere), and as Bessiec implies, might address Mike's concern. Thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 11:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked through, and though I see that the same names and hence topics come up more than once, I think the material is varied reasonably. Do you have something specific you think should be cut, or could you quote an example or two? Mike Christie (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look tonight; sorry, but I'm out of time this morning. Mike Christie (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through the points I noted above and most are fixed. I'll take another look at the article as a whole tomorrow, and look for the points EyeSerene raises, as well as trying to do a general pre-GA review and see what else we're going to need. Mike Christie (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You so much for your help! :) Bessiec (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comment re Citations:

• Notes 63 and 64 (the Gonzalez Echevarria ones from "Legacy", in case they've changed numbers!) need the publication year of the reference book they refer to, as there's two possibles. They also need formatting, but we can do that. EyeSerene^talk 19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello EyeSerene! The problem's fixed! ;)Bessiec (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Struck! EyeSerene^talk 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes on sources

I'm going through the sources here.

• The "Facundo" essay in Moss and V is actually by Kimberly Ball. All inline citations to Moss and V will have to be changed to Ball.
• The Ball is not really a great source. You can tell this in part from her bibliography. But she does mention Shumway essay that looks useful: from Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Latin American Literature. I recommend you chase that up.
• both of whom Sarmiento refers to as caudillo—someone who rules by his personal charisma rather than with law.Moss & Valestuk 1999, p. 171 This is not quite what Ball says on p. 171, as she makes no mention of charisma; it'll do, but ideally a better reference would be found.
• On the other hand, the salaries of the common laborers "were subjected to a the government cap" and the gauchos were arrested and the majority were forced to work without pay. Ball 1999, p. 172 This was unclear, but looking at the source enabled me to fix it. NB that there's a reference in that source to Shumway, The Invention of Argentina, p.84. Ideally, you'd follow that up.
• According to Ball, gauchos were "cattle-wrangling horsemen of the pampas, the vast flat grasslands of Argentina." Ball 1999, p. 173. There were no italics in the original, so I took them out.
• I've had to add the Mann reference (but I was wrong to think that you hadn't consulted a 19th-century book!). NB you might want to be careful with this source for reasons that Kathleen Ross outlines in her introduction.
• NB I haven't been able to check Newton, Lynch, Gonzalez Echevarria, Carilla, Bravo.
• Furthermore, the book is a combination between the fiction and the real context of the Argentinean Republic. In the book, Rosas has characteristics of both, the real life and the imagination of Sarmiento. Because the book is criticizing the government, the dictatorship is seen as the main cause of all the problems in Argentina, therefore, the barbarism and the savagery that Sarmiento is explaining in all the book, is a function of the dictatorship. (ref name="sorgood33" ). I don't see these ideas on p. 33 or Sorensen G.

whoops. This was actually in carilla's book. My apologies. --Mjlee27 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• They are the agents of instability and chaos, destroying societies through their blatant disregard for humanity and social progress. Sorensen Goodrich 1996, p. 8. P. 8 of Sorensen G is not about gauchos, and not much about barbarism. She talks more about both on pp 10-11: I'd re-read those pages, and see what you can get out of them to put here.

should I put more information about this?--Mjlee27 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily more information, but what I'm suggesting is that you revisit pp. 10-11 Sorensen G and ensure that you have got what's most useful and important from her argument about barbarism. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)