Talk:Eva Perón

Tentative suggestion: move popular culture out of the article

I must admit, I usually feel that the real, actual person/thing is qualitatively different from the pop culture thing, and if that is judged to be the case here then you could move the Evita musical stuff out into it's own article, maybe Eva Peron (popular culture), you could very, very probably make a case that that article was distinct and notable in its own right, and you could make the article here more focused. But you would have to generate consensus to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Che Guevara article has a section on popular culture, though it is admittedly smaller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_guevara#Legacy At any rate, you may have a point. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the popular culture section needs to be removed, so much as significantly pruned back; the Lisa Simpson cruft, as the most blatant example, needs to go. Although this type of "it was in the Simpsons!" stuff isn't my cup of tea, if someone wants to add that to the musical article instead, I won't argue. But here? No, I can't see that.

I'm going to remove that obvious one, and then I'll see if I can prune the less blatant stuff back a little more, and see if my edits are "controversial" or not. --barneca (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a first pass at pruning. revert and discuss anything you disagree with. I'm hoping at least one of those edits is uncontroverial, so my feelings are going to be hurt if they're all just reverted. --barneca (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that some of it needed to be trimmed, but it's really hard for me to prioritize regarding a subject where I'm interested in just about every aspect. But on second thought that reference to the Simpsons episode does seem far fetched for this article. Ultimately, that episode is about the musical, not the historical woman. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I find you're rather begging the question. It seems to me you removed the material to avoid splitting it out into a separate article; you probably wouldn't had to have done that if you had split.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not resolve content disputes by hiving off contentions sections in to separate articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no dispute about this content. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So we all agree it should stay as it is, then. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The only person to raise any issue with Barneca's edits is you. (I'm the one who originated that material Barneca's deleted, and I am fine with it being deleted because I now agree that it was too much.) This seems to imply that a consensus has indeed been reached. Not everyone has to agree. Though I do understand that my comments here most likely violate a plethora of Wikipedia acronyms I am soon to be linked to. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia does that quite often in fact. If there's no consensus how much material should be in one article, and splitting it allows consensus, then it's doubtless a good edit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible a really interesting article could be made at Eva Peron (popular culture). I really have no problem with someone creating it. There should still (IMHO) be an "in popular culture" section here, and there's not much more that could be pruned. If all we did was move this section (including the material I pruned) to the new article, we'd have a {{main}} template, and then just regurgitate 75% of what's in the new article right below. That wouldn't necessarily be bad if the new article was going to grow, but would be kind of a waste if not.

Also, there are already articles on the musical, the album, the movies... there are already places to put any info that was too detailed for this section.

So, my own opinion is, if we think there is a lot more material that could eventually go into Eva Peron (popular culture), we should create that article as a seed. If there wouldn't be much much more than what was previously here, I don't see the point, but I certainly wouldn't fight it if someone created it. --barneca (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually created a similar article a while ago: Cultural depictions of Eva Perón. It's far from complete. Andrew Parodi (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinez Quote

A few hours ago,I added the sentence:

She was far from being a saint, despite the veneration of millions of Argentines, but she was not a villain either.

to the Martinez quote (copied directly from the source), to ensure that the author's words were given proper context and his meaning was not represented. This was soon reverted, with the edit summary "tightening reference to focus on allegations of fascism, rather than analysis of her overall character and career". As the quote now stands, Martinez appears to be giving unqualified support to Evita, without this caveat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern. I am the one who initially included this quote from Martinez. Initially, I included the full quote, ending with the line "She was far from being a saint, despite the veneration of millions of Argentines, but she was not a villain either." A subsequent comment from another editor was that the article was too long and needed trimming. I thereafter removed this sentence (which I had originally included in my first edit) in an attempt to shorten the article. The section is about the allegation of whether she was fascist, and I figured that ending it on the note that she didn't have anything to do with Nazis entering Argentina was a way to keep the block quote focused on whether she was fascist. The sentence in question does not address whether she was fascist but whether she was a saint or a villian, concluding that she was neither.

As I am the one who introduced this section to the article, I have no problem with that sentence. I removed it in an attempt to shorten the article. Now that it was introduced again, I have removed it again for the same reason. If it is inserted again, I won't remove it again because I think that, however unrelated to the topic of whether she was fascist or a fascist sympathizer, it still makes a good point. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture at top of page

Someone recently changed the picture at the top of the page. They changed it to a picture of Eva Peron smiling during one of her weekends with Juan Peron at, I believe, San Vicente (though I may be wrong). I changed the image back to the previous image of Eva Peron addressing a rally from the balcony of the Casa Rosada.

A change may be good, so I'm not too passionate about keeping the current picture of Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada. I do, however, believe that an image of Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada before a microphone is most appropriate for the top of this article because it depicts her in the context of her greatest fame. She is most famous as an icon of the masses and an orator who addressed the masses from the Casa Rosada. I just think that for the purposes of this article it's more historically pertinent to have an image of Eva Peron at a rally rather than a casual weekend with her hair down. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Affairs

The musical Evita depicts Eva Peron as working her way up society to Juan Peron via a series of calculated seductions & affairs (and depicts her hence as scheming & evil). Indeed this is what much of the first half of the musical is about. Is there any truth to this? The article doesn't seem to say anything about it. Ben Finn (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article about the musical Evita (musical). That article mentions that the musical is based on the book "The Woman with the Whip" which is anti-Eva Peron. Tomas Eloy Martinez writes that Eva Peron did not have any more affairs than was necessary for survival in a society he called "highly sexist" during a time period when women were so disenfranchised that they weren't even allowed to vote. Martinez mentions something that I've found to be true: just about everyone who knew Eva Peron personally commented that she was the most sexless person they'd ever met. She is said to have had virtually no sex appeal whatsoever. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Small suggestion for Bfinn: if you want to learn about history (of Argentina or whatever place) read books of history. Never use popular culture items (such as movies, fictional books, comic books, etc) as replacements for that. Stories need to have things such as a narrative structure, a begining, an end, a well-defined character, some appeal for the main public it's directed to, etc. Reality (and history, wich is simply the reality of past times) has a great flaw: it usually lacks those things, so narrators add them on ther own. MBelgrano (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Perón"

Why (other than the habit of lingering sexism in our culture) is the subject of this article so infrequently referred to simply by her surname, as is conventional for an encyclopedia article? She is referred to variously as "Eva", as "Eva Perón", and even as "Evita", but rarely as "Perón", which is what Wikipedia style guidelines call for. I understand that in some contexts it's necessary to avoid confusion with her husband, but surely not this often. Likewise, I can see an argument for not calling her "Perón" when she was named Eva Duarte, but calling her "Eva Perón" instead makes even less sense. The only person routinely referred to here as "Perón" is Juan Perón, which is rather confusing in an article about Eva Perón! - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

She probably should not be referred to as Eva, unfortunately this is a lazy writing style that is present in a lot of Wikipedia articles about women (men too, but especially women); it makes it sound like the article subject is your buddy. Evita, though, should be acceptable, because that's the name she seems to be known by most widely, especially within Argentina (compare it to Madonna, etc.). As for why she's rarely called just "Perón", I think you hit the nail on the head—that is used more often to refer to her husband. Perhaps we could try to use it more in the article, but in places where it might be ambiguous (i.e., any sections that talk about both her and the president) it would be necessary to have some disambiguator (such as just calling her "Evita"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to clean it up. In most cases when talking about both Peróns, "she" and "he" are clear enough in context. In fact, there are a lot of places where just using pronouns reads better. I tried not to use just "Perón" in reference to Juan, because that's simply stylistically incorrect (in this article); "Perón" by itself refers only to her. The only place "Evita" should appear is in a direct quote. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What whould you think if someone suggested to call Martha Washington simply "Washington"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBelgrano (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Before people get all high and mighty throwing bizarre accusations around with speculations about why she is referred to in this article as either "Evita" or "Eva", let me clarify something for those of you who have not studied her life to any great extent.

In studies of Argentine history Juan Peron is usually referred to as "Peron," and Eva Peron is usually referred to as "Evita." If in this article we referred to her as "Peron," it sounds like we're referring to her husband.

Eva Peron herself wrote in her autobiography La Razon de mi Vida that she preferred to be referred to as "Evita," which is the nickname for "Eva." She wrote that in social functions she was referred to either as "Eva Peron" or sometimes "Mrs. President." But she herself wrote that she preferred to be referred to as Evita. (Therefore, it can hardly be claimed that referring to her as "Evita" is indication of sexism.) That is in fact one of her most famous speeches which she gave when she declined the pressure to run for the vice presidency; she said that she wished that in the marvellous chapter of history written about the man she referred to as "Peron" there would be mention that at his side was a woman whom the people "affectionately called 'Evita,' nothing more than Evita."

It is the convention of Wikipedia articles to refer to the subject by the name by which they are most famous. Throughout the world she is known as she wanted to be known, simply as "Evita." Thus, this is reflected in the article. If we referred to her in this article as "Peron," it would appear that we were writing about her husband Juan Peron. I have thus reverted the article to its previous appearance. --- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Evita" should be fine (I think I tried to say as much above). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I remind people from other countries that, despite everything else about Evita (fame, musicals, movies, books, etc.), Juan Domingo Perón was the president of the nation, and Evita wasn't. So, every time we talk about any action done by "Peron", meaning "by the president/goverment/whatever of Argentina in that time period", we talk about Juan Domingo. Yes, many of such things are result of Evita's work, like women's sufrage, but always with the aid and approval of his husband. She hasn't really take any strong action without his support, much less against his views.

Besides, Evita's political life is tied to that of Juan Domingo, but Juan Domingo had political power before Evita became a political leader of her own right, and remained in action for many years after her death, even becoming president a third time and bringing another wife of political relevance. The influence of Juan Domingo Perón in the history and politics of Argentina is far greater than that of Evita, and that's why the name "Perón" alone is more commonly used to talk about him than her. MBelgrano (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Accents on the "o" in "Peronism" and "Peronato"

The user Rjanag [1] has inserted accents over the "o" in the words "Peronism" and "Peronato." Typically, an accent is not found over the "o" in these words. Additionally, this editor has changed the spelling of some images, often adding accents over the "o" in "Peron." While this is correct, if the image itself does not have an accent over the "o," all you do when you add the accent is disable the image -- which is what resulted from these edits. I'm assuming good faith about these edits, but I hope the editor will realize that this is not needed. Thank you. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I know words in engish don't have accents. "Perón" is an exception because it's a personal name, but "peronism" isn't. Even more, in spanish itself "perónismo" would also be a gramatical mistake. MBelgrano (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I already responded to you at my talk page and have fixed all the issues. I've moved on to cleaning up the god-awful citation style which currently violates WP:V. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

I just finished cleaning up the book references in this article. They were very bad, for several reasons:

1. Many references were styled like <ref name=Fraser>Page 17.</ref>, which is useless for the reader because it says what page the information is only but not what source; the source information is only visible from the edit window, which a reader should not have to click to understand the article. This is a serious problem as far as WP:V is concerned.
2. Many references that should have been merged were duplicated over and over again; many that should have been separate (because they had different pages numbers) were meaninglessly merged.
3. Many sources are lacking information necessary to indentify and find the source. I wasn't able to fix many of those, but I marked some (with hidden notes or {{clarify}} tags).

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DE REMATE.COM

REMATO CONCHERO QUE USABA EVITA EN EL CABARUTE DONDE CONOCIO A PERON