Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas

Article soon to be finished

I expect this article to be finished in a week, at most. --Lecen (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Now the article has high quality pictures all over it. As soon as I can I'll try to finish it once and for all. --Lecen (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Those look good! • Astynax ^talk 23:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Rosas' full name

It's almost a nightmare to understand what is Rosas' true full name. Historians don't seem to agree, sometimes adding given names, others subtracting, you'll see his mother's surname added to mix sometimes as well.

Thus, to end that insanity once and for all, I present you Rosas' birth certificate. In Spanish:

En la ciudad de la S. S. Trinidad, Puerto de Santa María de Buenos Aires, a treinta días del mes de Marzo de mil setecientos noventa y tres años, yo el Dr Don Pantaleón de Rivarola, Capellán del Tercer Batallón del Regimento de Infantería de esta Plaza, por ausencia del Capellán del Segundo Batallón, bautizé, puse óleo y crisma a Juan Manuel José Domingo que nació el mismo día, hijo legítimo de Don León Ortiz de Rozas, natural de esta ciudad, teniente de la 5a Compañía del 2o Batallíón del expresado Regimiento, y de Doña Agustina Teresa López, natural de esta ciudad.

Fueron padrinos Don José Echevarría y su esposa Doña María Francisca Ramos; abuelos paternos Don Domingo Ortiz de Rozas, natural del lugar de Rozas del Valle de Soba, arzobispado de Burgos, capitán de Granadaeros de la 1a Compañía del sobredicho Regimiento, y Doña Catalina Gogihola; abuelos maternos Clemente López de Osornio, sargento mayor de las milicias de esta ciudad, y Doña Manuel Rubio y Gamiz:

Firmado: Pantaleón Rivarola

Source: pages 17 and 18 of Pradère, Juan A. Juan Manuel de Rosas: Su Iconografía. Buenos Aires: Editorial Oriente, 1970.

It should be noticed that all name listed are given names, not surnames. Spain and Portugal, as well as their colonies in the Americas only mentioned the given names of a child in his or her birth certificate.

So, what would be Rosas' surname? You can see it in his marriage certificate. In Spanish:

En Buenos Aires, a doce días del mes de Marzo del año de mil ochocientos trece, Don Manuel Ortiz de Rozas, natural de esta ciudad, de estado soltero, de veinte años de edad, aparroquiado en el curato de Moserrat, con redisencia en el partido de la Magdalena e hijo legítimo de Don León Ortiz de Rosas que está presente a darle su consentimento y de Doña Agustina López de Osornio, y Doña Encarnación de Ezcurra, natural también de esta capital, de estado soltera, de diez y ocho años de edad, aparroquiada en el curato de la Catedral, e hija legítima de Don Juan Ignacio de Ezcurra y de Doña Theodora de Arguibel, por ante mí el presente notario, manifestaron y dijeron. Que para mejor servir a Dios nuestro Señor quieren ahora de su libre y espontánea voluntad contraer matrimonio según el orden de nuestra Santa Madre Iglesia, mediante a que no tienen impedimento alguno canónico de consaguinidad, afinidad o de parentesco espiritual y demás que por mí el notario se les han explicado en el acto de esta diligencia que firman ambos contrayentes y los nominados padres de la contrayente en prueba de su consentimiento, de todo lo que doy fe.

Firmado: Juan M. Ortiz de Rozas. Encarnación de Ezcurra. Theodora de Arguibel. Juan Ignacio de Ezcurra. José Marcos Viera

Source: page 19 of Pradère, Juan A. Juan Manuel de Rosas: Su Iconografía. Buenos Aires: Editorial Oriente, 1970.

Thus, his last names are "Ortiz de Rozas" (or Ortiz de Rosas). It's curious that his father's name was spelled "Rosas", instead of "Rozas". The name "Rosas" was also spelled "Rozas" and there was never a definite version during the first half of the 19th Century. It should also be noted that the usage of "Don" (Lord) and "Doña" (Lady) doesn't mean that anyone mentioned had a title of "Don" or "Doña" given by the Spanish kings. In Spain and in her American colonies was common to call anyone belonging to the aristocracy by "Don" or "Doña" as a sign of respect. The same occurred in Portugal and in Brazil, but ONLY with "Dona", never with "Don".

Concluding, Rosas' full name was "Juan Manuel José Domingo Ortiz de Rosas". --Lecen (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps brief quotations from the birth certificate and marriage record could be placed in an endnote. Someone in future may come along and cite a book that uses a different name, so it would be good to have that information in the article. • Astynax ^talk 16:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a footnote. --Lecen (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lecen, it's not our responsibility to search for "the definite answer" to questions that historians argue about --in fact we must not do it. I urge you to read WP:NPOVFAQ and WP:YESPOV. Our job is to merely reflect what every POV in the literature says (excluding WP:FRINGE theories). We must not WP:EDITORIALIZE our accepted conclusions into Wikipedia, we are not historians. In other words, we are not here to draw conclusions from sources, just to present them. And as such, this article does a terrible job on the issue of Rosas' name... --Langus (t) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The more relevant policy is "original synthesis"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It would only be original synthesis if a novel claim was being made, or if historians widely refuted the name. Lecen has not done that. The article makes no claims about the name, nor can I find any evidence of historians "arguing" about the name. If you have reliable sources where such an argument is mentioned, then it can certainly be noted. • Astynax ^talk 22:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate on Rosas' name. The problem is that here and other you will find his mother's surname as well. To be sure, I used his birth certificate. Simple as that. --Lecen (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You started this section by saying "It's almost a nightmare to understand what is Rosas' true full name"..... I think you are contradicting yourself. --Langus (t) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on Lynch source

There are many assertions in the article, most of them rather negative, that relay on Lynch as their only source. I'm worried that this author may have a particularly negative POV on Rosas that would be presented without taking into account what other historians say.

First of all I'd like to ask for other secondary, reliable sources that support the following:

• According to historian John Lynch, it "was supplemented by his own efforts in the years that followed. Rosas was not entirely unread, though the time, the place, and his own bias limited the choice of authors. He appears to have had a sympathetic, if superficial, acquaintance with minor political thinkers of French absolutism."

• The British returned in 1807, and Rosas was assigned to the Caballería de los Migueletes (militia cavalry), although it is thought that he was barred from active duty during this time due to illness.

• He never allowed (gauchos under his service) to forget, however, that he was their master, rather than their equal.

• Rosas was, according to Lynch, "a man of conservative instincts, a creature of the colonial society in which he had been formed, a defender of authority and hierarchy." He was, thus, merely a product of his time and not at all unlike the other great landowners in the Río de la Plata region.

• According to historian John Lynch, "Rosas did not disguise his preference for the colonial order and its guarantee of peace and unity. Rosas, like many of his kind, looked back on the colonial period as a golden age when law ruled and prosperity prevailed."

In all, even if these negative opinions are shared by other authors, knowing that there are historians who praise Rosas as a hero, we would bring the article to a more neutral stance if we take many of them out. --Langus (t) 20:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

One does not need a secondary source for direct quotations. Nor is Rosas widely viewed in a positive light outside revisionist sources, which lack any legitimacy, and which is dealt with in the Legacy section. Additional sources are fine, as are mainstream scholarly sources who give alternate views (if you have such material cited to mainstream scholars, by all means add it.), however NPoV policy does not require "balancing" negative statements with positive statements to produce a synthetic "neutrality" – far from it. • Astynax ^talk 22:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Lynch's book is widely regarded by historians as the best biography of Rosas. If other book was considered a better option, than I would have used it. --Lecen (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Astynax: please explain how revisionism current "lacks any legitimacy". I can easily find scholars with an alternate view: there are many revisionists out there, specially nowadays. Felipe Pigna would be a valid historian to you, right?

@Lecen: please submit proof (i.e. a reliable source stating it, not you) that Lynch "is widely regarded by historians as the best biography of Rosas". Although it's not really that important: regarding words like "best" or "better" applied to sources, I direct you to my comment in the section below.

Thanks. --Langus (t) 08:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

For all your answers, please see this Arbitration case. Last time someone tried to push Argentine revisionist sources on this article got banned forever from editing anything related to Latin American history. --Lecen (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

An arbitration doesn't discuss content and you should know that by now, given that you dodged a bullet there. This sounds more like a threatening than anything else (which is a big no-no here in WP).

Again: please submit proof (i.e. a reliable source stating it, not you) that Lynch "is widely regarded by historians as the best biography of Rosas". --Langus (t) 20:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a threat since I have no powers to do the same with you. In fact, I really wish I could avoid that ordeal again if possible. What I tried to say was that using Revisionist sources is sou serious that can cause you to be banned.

In the case of Lynch, as I said, everything you need you'll find at the ArbCom case. See please see this Arbitration case#Nationalism/Revisionism for all info you need on Argentine revisionism and "What is the best available source about Rosas?". --Lecen (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacy section

The description about what Revisionismo movement doesn't fit with can be read at Revisionismo histórico en Argentina. Adolfo Saldías, precursor of revisionism in Argentina, published Historia de la Confederación Argentina in 1881, while "Nacionalismo was a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s". Makes me wonder what exactly 'Nacionalismo' political movement would be. --Langus (t) 20:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You're asking us to use as a model an article in Spanish that has no sources. It makes no sense. The sources used on Rosas article are regarded as the best in English. --Lecen (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking for that. I'm asking you to explain how can it be that the first Argentine revisionist historian started writing 40 years before the political movement to which revisionism is allegedly related to even existed. I'm arguing that the information is wrong, that's why I'm asking you what exactly 'Nacionalismo' political movement would be (please answer).

And no, we don't present only the "best" sources, ditching away the "not so good" ones. That's not allowed to us. --Langus (t) 08:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Instead of using the best sources, we should use not so good ones"? "That's not allowed to us"? Huh? --Lecen (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:

“ Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ”

Key points are "all of the significant views" and "reliable sources". Unreliable sources are the only ones that we can't use in Wikipedia.

You didn't address my concerns, I'm still waiting for your answer. --Langus (t) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There a number of good sources now in English on the revisionist movement in Argentina and its links to both Peronism and National Socialism. I could point out [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I note that they consistently reflect what is currently in the article. Hope that helps. WCM_email 21:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bold reverts

@Lecen: reverted ALL my edits to the Legacy section with a vague "request" of "Do NOT remove highly respected sources from the article".[7]

On the removal: I did so because the information directly contradicts what follows a few lines below. That is because the quote of the highly respected source is from 1960s' and at that time it was correct; now it isn't. Why would it be so important as to warrant inclusion, even being outdated?

I ask Lecen to explain why he reverted my other additions or otherwise to restore them into the article. Thanks in advance. --Langus (t) 08:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A book from the 1960s is not outdated. If that were the case no historian could work with sources older than 10 years. And the source you called "outdated"? It's the Hispanic American Historical Review. Once of the best around. Lastly: the source is used to represent the view Argentines had in the 1960s. --Lecen (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, leave the view of the 60s aside for now. Did you notice that you reverted other additions too? --Langus (t) 20:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)