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)

Finished "Exile and death" section. Astynax, please make any corrections necessary. --Lecen (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Done with "Rebellions and foreign threat". --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'll finish the last sections as well as the lead. --Lecen (talk) 01:41, 3 October 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)

"Using Revisionist sources is so serious that can cause you to be banned"??? Boy, I'm astonished. Astynax do you agree with with Lecen in that we can't use revisionist sources??

Lecen, if you keep on reverting me and ignoring my complaints, that surely is a behavior worth a sanction. --Langus (t) 00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, revisionismo sources are WP:FRINGE and may only be used carefully (and usually with qualification) for statements they make about themselves or in describing the fringe view itself (not for statements of historical fact or that imply a significantly held consensus). • Astynax ^talk 04:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

See my comment below. Argentine Revisionismo Historico is a scholarly POV, just as other occurrences of Historical revisionism around the world. --Langus (t) 22:24, 3 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)

Thank you WCM, now I understand the problem a bit more. And I have to say I disagree: in the article there is a clear association of Revisionism with the military coup of 1930, even so far as describing the movement as "authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic". Jumping from revisionism to the military coup to the negative aspects of the regime in three sentences one after the other is original synthesis of ideas. For starters, the Revisionism movement is more often associated with Peronism, not the 1930s. But more importantly, it is an independent historiographical movement, that even if it agrees with the nationalistic vision of a military coup or a political party, it was in no way born under their fueling an certainly doesn't depend on any of them to exist (just think about it: the political movement of 1930 and Peronism have nothing in common except being highly nationalistic).

In sum, if you insist of leaving the revisionist point of view outside of this article, even going so far as to demonize it, you didn't understand what Wikipedia strives for. --Langus (t) 00:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere the article makes any mention of any coup in 1930. There is no "clear association of Revisionism with the military coup of 1930". The movement is described as "authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic" because it's all respected historians in the field have described it. I cannot hide that. And yes: I will insist in leaving Revisionist out of the article, since it's considered fringe theory by mainstream historiography.

Im trying to understand why you got so interested in the article. It was abandoned for over a year. You never bothered to edit on it, to complain about something. Nothing. The moment I say I'm going to finish it you suddenly appear? Can you explain that? --Lecen (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You are taking this personal... I've always watched this article, in fact I've edited here before. A change you introduced ("little michaels") caught my attention, so I investigated for the proper translation and corrected it.[7]

You are wrong in describing revisionism as a fringe theory, and that's what we need to discuss, specially if you want to WP:FINISH this article. --Langus (t) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't think the none too subtle threat to disrupt a GA drive unless your content is accepted is helpful. Lecen is actually correct that most mainstream historians regards Revisionist historians as fringe, their habit of making stuff without hard evidence is one reason why. WCM_email 08:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A threat??? My remark was intended to be ironic, have you followed the link? (yes of course you have; I think you were the one who introduced me to that essay in the first place). Please don't add more fuel to the fire, WCM...

"Mainstream historians" are not the only ones with a right to speak in WP. We as editors are required to reflect every POV available in literature, regardless of what their mainstream opponents think of them.

"A fringe theory is, broadly speaking, an idea or viewpoint held by a small minority of supporters". Are you both claiming that the revisionist scholar work is a small minority in the literature? That's nonsense. One of the best-seller historians nowadays in Argentina, Felipe Pigna, is a revisionist. Felix Luna was a revisionist. Ironically, if we speak from an audience perspective, it doesn't get more mainstream than Luna or Pigna. --Langus (t) 22:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Text as a medium doesn't convey irony at all well, I doubt I was the only one to perceive that comment as threatening a GA drive.

Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? sold in excess of 63,000,000 copies; popularity does not mean it is not a fringe theory. Whilst the Revisionist movement is popular in Argentina, particularly in the Peronist movement, it is not widely regarded outside of the country as reliable. Most of its proponents do not follow established norms in scholarly work, produce work that could be described as an agenda based fiction and reach conclusions that are not supported by evidence - and as I noted earlier are not above simply inventing facts. Please do not confuse work that is dominated by political considerations as reliable or claim it is of a scholastic standard. You once tried to argue that something "true from an Argentine perspective" made it a fact, it didn't then and it doesn't now. I can see a reprise of the arguments that lead to the arbcom case, in that case it was noted these sources were unreliable.

I have never shrunk from expressing my opinion that the outcome of the arbcom case was unjust, or from expressing criticism of Lecen's conduct and I doubt it would come as a surprise to anyone he is not an editor I hold in high regard. I am commenting on content not the editor and in this case the content is pretty well written.

You state above we are required to reflect every POV available. You are fundamentally wrong, we are in fact required to deliver a balanced view of the range of opinions in the literature. If you refer to the sources provided above, the article currently does give a reasonable account of this work. WP:NPOV does not simply require stating a range of POV and allowing them to stand without any criticism. WCM_email 22:49, 3 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".[8]

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)

I'm re adding some of them, as you are not answering me. --Langus (t) 00:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Blanking RS material without consensus is disruptive. Please do not do so again. Unreferenced, tangential material may be removed. As for your tagging, you requested a citation for a passage that is indeed covered by the existing reference. I looked it up to confirm. • Astynax ^talk 04:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it is basic WP:BRD. If I would've deleted it again then yes, you could complain about my behavior, but right now all I see is editors believing to WP:OWN an article and literally saying they want to WP:FINISH it. Every edit I made, even the ones requesting a citation were reverted: that's disruptive editing. --Langus (t) 21:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Twenty-pesos note

I've noticed a bit of edit warring over the twenty-peso note, a statue and a metro station. It does seem clear (see this and this, for example) that his image is on the twenty-pesos note. I suggest that his presence on the note is significant, and worth mentioning in the article. And I suggest that those two links seem like reasonably reliable sources that are sufficient to establish that as fact. In fact, I think a picture of the note would be a good addition to the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You got it wrong: that's not the problem. The problem is that Langus has been removing sourced content. --Lecen (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Haha the problem is that Lecen hates Rosas, and thinks that the revisionist movement (or any positive view on Rosas, like the decision of Menem's government of honoring him in a bill) should censored-out of Wikipedia.

I'd say we need outside assistance to get this solved. --Langus (t) 01:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my removal of Lecen's last comment – it was a mistake, and I want to thank Lecen for fixing that. I was trying to expand my prior remark and there was an edit conflict. I didn't realize that I was deleting your comment by saving that edit. Anyhow, I was trying to say that I thought that adding a picture of the twenty peso bill to the article seemed like a good idea. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Langus, you don't know me to accuse me of "hating" someone. Please, refrain from doing that. I'm using reliable sources; the ones regarded as the best in mainstream historiography. If you have just as reliable and respected sources, we can add them to the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with BarrelProof. Lecen what do you think? --Langus (t) 01:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently his image was also put onto some postage stamps, and there was some commentary about this in the following journal article: Bushnell, David. "Postal Images of Argentine Proceres: A Look at Selective Myth-Making". Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, vol. 1, pp. 91–105 (1982). It might be desirable to look up that article and perhaps to use it as a reference, and to mention the stamps in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Stamps? What's next? T-shirts? --Lecen (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If the government issues T-shirts with Rosas' portrait on the front and prints them in large numbers for widespread use and requires them to be accepted for conducting some class of transactions (and expects people to lick the back of them), then yes, that would be very noteworthy. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that postage stamps are notable enough for mention, especially when you consider the range of people, events, flowers, animals, rocks, buildings, vehicles and other subjects that now get plastered on postal stamps to appeal to various category collectors. I agree that the banknote image is worthy of inclusion, however. • Astynax ^talk 18:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[9] I think you'll find including images of Argentine currency are a copyright violation, I would imagine this would be picked up in any GA review. Generally you might get to use them on article on currency with a WP:FUR but I very much doubt that extends here. WCM_email 18:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

[10] Btw the same applies to images of stamps. WCM_email 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that the page about the file contains remarks about that. However, my understanding is that there is an acceptable fair-use rationale for using a picture of the currency in the context of commentary or criticism about the currency itself (e.g., as opposed to using it for some unrelated purpose, such as for merely decorative purposes). Here we have a discussion of recent effort by the government to endorse a modified perception of a historical figure, which has included the erection of a statue, portrait placement on currency and postage stamps, etc. My impression was that such a discussion of the currency itself could include the image. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with a fair use rationale, is that they require the image is not widely used. Its currently used in Argentine peso, so re-using it here would be pushing the edge of the envelope. Paging Moonriddengirl your expertise is requested. WCM_email 19:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is that as the image is used on Argentine peso, there would be no need to include it as you can simply state his image is on the 20 peso note and include a wikinlink. I see you added a FUR to the image upload I would strongly suggest waiting before adding it back. WCM_email 19:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Usage in two articles hardly seems like a situation that's spinning out of control, but I don't object to the suggested wikilink approach (if it seems necessary to avoid using the image). I don't understand the remark saying "I see you added a FUR to the image upload". I did not modify the file's page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I took another look at the file's page, and I do indeed see a FUR there about the use in this article. But I did not add it. I think it was already there before I came along. I don't understand how to look up the history to see who added that and when. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I see how to find the history – I had to look at the history of the page, not the history of the image. That FUR was added at 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)‎ by Cambalachero. To me, it seems apt. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Having been pinged by WCM, I'm just popping in to say that there's no strict one-only rule that I'm aware of. :) I think you just need to make sure that the use is necessary and defensible. IF you have questions, I'd suggest WT:NFC, as the people who hang out there do a lot more with non-free files than I do. :) It's what I would do if I wasn't sure myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Replying to the above remark by Astynax, I would agree that in some cases, the appearance of something on a postage stamp is not especially important. But here the postage stamp is symptomatic of a reinterpretation of the role of this person in history, and it is discussed in a reliable peer-reviewed academic journal. I think that makes it noteworthy. (I'm not saying it's worth three paragraphs, but I think it's worth mentioning.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A brief mention is relevant but I agree I don't think its worth extensive commentary. WCM_email 21:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one who believes that this entire discussion is pointless? All this trouble over a banknote? Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss (perhaps even add information) about how Rosas is perceived nowadays in Argentina, the best places are Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas and Repatriation of Juan Manuel de Rosas's body. Tomorrow I'll add a line (sourced line, of course) talking about the 1989-2014 period. And that's it. I'm done with this "discussion". --Lecen (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are the only one to believe that, wikipedia is a co-operative endeavour after all. WCM_email 22:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no trouble with co-operative endeavor. If it's was up to me, I'd have other editors helping me with all research, writing and reviewing process of this article. However, I can't waste time debating whether or not a banknote should be in the article. It's pointless. --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Well removing copy vios will help the GA drive. As regards research, are you aware of this [11]? I was looking for something that covered the Menem period - this gives quite a balanced view of the range of opinions and the motivations of the period. Its worth taking the time to read. WCM_email 23:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, WCM. I'm already using that book as a source (see bibliography). I even talked with the author of the essay on Rosas when I was providing sources for the ArbCom case. If you have other suggestions, I'd be grateful. If you can, take your time to review the entire article and point out flaws. --Lecen (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I see some parallels between Rosas and Andrew Jackson – another military leader of the same time period who fought relentlessly against the Indians that opposed him while being generous with the Indians that supported him, became the head of state, held his country together as a union against divisive forces, and exercised a generally strong force of will in his leadership – sometimes using tactics that are not considered appropriate today. Not to stretch that point too far, of course, but I think there are some similarities. Incidentally, the first two entries in the list of memorials to Jackson in the Wikipedia article about him are that he appears on his country's 20-unit note of currency and on its postage stamps. There is a picture of the currency note at that point in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

From a request at NFC: No, the image of the banknote is not allowed to be used in the manner being suggested, per WP:NFC#UUI#9. Unless there is critical discussion about the way he is represented on the banknote, using the image here when it is already used at the article on the banknotes in general is excessive non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the context. #9 says that such a picture (e.g., of a magazine cover) could be used "if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article". The notion here is indeed to discuss the currency, not merely to illustrate the person that is depicted, since the presence of the portrait on the currency is a historic development that departs from the prior governmental practice of not having any public commemorations of this person. So it does not appear to me that this usage necessarily runs afoul of #9. However, I think the wikilink suffices if others feel differently. I guess it's true that we're not trying to discuss the way he is represented on the banknote – merely the fact that he is represented on the banknote (but the guideline does not say "if the way the person is represented on the cover itself is the subject of ..."). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

How to write an article

I am more than happy with the idea of having people willing to collaborate on the article. However, we need to do it right.

What is wrong with these edits by BarrelProof? Here's the answer:

1) The article has an obvious and clear structure: every section is composed of three paragraphs. Three. BarrelProof has created four for no reason, breaking an established standard.

2) "Similarly impressed" was added to the text. Does the source mentions that the person was "impressed" with Rosas? No. Then, do NOT write what is not mentioned in the source. It's that simple.

3) "Rosas was an impressive man". The same problem as above. The source merely mentions that Rosas was handsome. Why was "impressive" added? We can not add information that is not originally mentioned in the source used.

Now for Langus-TxT edits:

1) The first historical view presented represents the ideas of a neorevisionist. Argentine revisionism cannot be used as reliable source. You cannot present it first, because anyone will think that it's the main view among historians. That's POV pushing. Worse: you used Pacho O'Donnel, one of the most unreliable "historians" out there.

2) Then you mention "other historians", like these were a minority, an alternative view to the main one, the mainstream one. This is blatant POV pushing, Langus. It's wrong. You're trying hard to impose fringe views here and that's unacceptable.

Just because Wikipedia is not a scientific magazine or book, its doesn't mean that we cannot be professionals. We can. In fact, we must. I write my articles as they were written for a publication. I want them not only to look good, but I want them to have the highest standing. I'm not asking something impossible, folks. I'm not. But you two are not helping. I'm asking you both to change your behavior and start being truly helpful. In the case of BarrelProof, I believe his unsourced additions were honest mistakes. In Langus' case, it's obvious he's pushing a POV. What makes his behavior the most outrageous is that he's trying hard to enforce the views of anti-semitic, authoritarian, racist and fascist publicists. If Langus persists with that, I'll have to report him. I do not want to do that. It's a nightmare. I'll have to deal with a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators. However, I will not tolerate anyone pushing anti-semitic and racist authors around. --Lecen (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You are asking me to go against one WP five pillars, that's what you're doing. Please do report me. Now. Thank you. --Langus (t) 00:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No he is not Langus but you are. I dare say if it comes down to a report at WP:AE or even WP:ANI you may regret that remark. And I say WP:AE because I note that Bookworm felt you were editing by proxy for Cambalachero. I seriously doubt it based on my personal interactions with Cambalachero but someone else might. WCM_email 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits were not "for no reason". I expressed my reasoning in an edit summary for every edit. My impression is that the topic discussed in part of that paragraph seemed quite out-of-context, relative to what was in the preceding part of the paragraph – so I separated one paragraph into two and modified the wording to try to make the prose flow more smoothly. I had no idea that there was something special about the number of paragraphs in that section – a styling point that I suggest is not as important as having paragraphs that make logical sense as unified topics, but if others think that is important, I'm willing to listen. As you can see, my edit summary for the first of those edits said "Some copyedit. The discussion of his handsomeness didn't seem to flow very well with the rest. Trying to improve that as best I can." I am trying to help and to collaboratively improve the article as best I can. After being criticized for trying to discuss and resolve some previous edit warring about the currency and remarking about postage stamps, it was suggested for me to try to improve other aspects of the article, so I followed that suggestion. Although the cited source may not have used the word "impressed", I don't think there is any inaccuracy introduced by using that word, as it accurately reflects what the source portrayed. Please note that the word was not used within quotes, so it is not required to be verbatim wording. Of course, if others think that it is not a good choice of wording, I am willing to listen, discuss, and collaborate to help find the best approach. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the suggestion that mention of the currency and stamps may be of relevance; they are evidence of the rehabilitation of Rosa's image but not definitively so. I do however strongly disagree with the edit that was added last night in the place it was to imply that there is no longer any controversy over Rosas in Argentina. I have copy edited to remove the none neutral implication of those edits. WCM_email 09:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@WCM: (about a different edit than the one you discussed just above) I see that you just (very quickly!) objected to an introductory phrase that I added that said "However, further acknowledgements of him as a significant historical figure have followed—", saying "rm editorialising - sources still state this remains controversial". I'd like to point out that the phrase did not say that that these things were uncontroversial. It simply stated a clear fact – that these things occurred. The phrase also does not say anything non-neutral about him—just that he was "a significant historical figure", which is clearly a true and uncontroversial statement. I think it is desirable to have some phrase to introduce that sentence, to improve the flow of the narrative of the article. Without it, I think the sentence is rather disconnected from the rest of the paragraph, and perhaps should be in a separate paragraph (which I don't think would really be desirable). How about "Further commemorations of his legacy have since appeared, [... banknote, statue, metro station]—although they have remained controversial."? —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I left your edit pretty much unchanged, I just removed unnecessary embellishment. Are these really further acknowledgements of him and by whom? You were editorialising and that is not encouraged in articles. WCM_email 16:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To respond to your "by whom?" question – that would be by government entities (national and local), I suppose. The article says that prior to the repatriation of his remains, there were no memorials ("no monument to him in the entire nation; no park, plaza, or street bears his name"). If, after the repatriation, he began to appear on currency, postage stamps, a statue in a public place (which Wikipedia calls a "major monument"), and a metro station, are those not clearly further acknowledgements? Or perhaps "further commemoration"? Without some introductory phrase, I think the transition is a bit abrupt and the reader needs to stop and wonder why these facts are being mentioned at that place in that paragraph about repatriation of his remains. (As I mentioned before, changing that sentence into a separate paragraph might be another way to handle the transition, but that might be undesirable for other reasons.) —BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that flow needs improvement. Also, finishing with "although they have remained controversial" seems like a good addition: there is a group of neighbors that still want to change the metro station's name. Same thing with the 20 pesos bill: there are people here and there who want them replaced, as well as the one with Roca on its face (the 100 note). --Langus (t) 20:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It would actually better to note that "although references to Rosas remain controversial and there are suggestions remove them", noting Langus' comments I'm sure that can be sourced. WCM_email 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

O'Donnell WP:FRINGE according to Arbcom

Both Lecen and Astynax have removed a book by O'Donnell claiming Arbcom found said author to be WP:FRINGE ([12][13]). Could I get a link to that decision please? Thanks, Gaba ^(talk) 17:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Pacho O'Donnell

Please stop reinserting references to this author. O'Donnell's lack of credentials as a historian, neo-revisionist PoV and other problems have been extensively discussed (including at Arbcom's Argentine History case) and is WP:FRINGE for this topic. • Astynax ^talk 17:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, looks like you missed the section I opened above. Could you please point me to wherever it was concluded/consensuated that O'Donnell is a WP:FRINGE author please? Thank you. Gaba ^(talk) 17:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the WP:ARBARG case, particularly at the final decision where pushing O'Donnell is the author used as a rationale behind the sanctions. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Astynax, thanks for your answer. Could I ask you to be a bit more precise? I've looked at the entire WP:ARBARG page, paying special attention to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History#Final_decision but I see no indication of O'Donnell being declared a WP:FRINGE author, nor any decision regarding that author whatsoever. Could you clarify? Gaba ^(talk) 19:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have my hands tied, since I requested a mutual interaction ban with the other users. What I could tell you is to look at the "evidence" page and read my stuff there, then you should go final decision. --Lecen (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the Evidence page, which does demonstrate that revisionismo sources are fringe (as had been pointed out by others in various articles), see the footnotes cited in the final decision. Note also that the case was specifically brought regarding pushing revisionismo sources in this and other Argentine-related articles. • Astynax ^talk 19:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Lecen I don't know why you feel you could not talk freely, I have not asked anything about any editor. Both you and Astynax have stated that O'Donnell has been deemed a WP:FRINGE author at Arbcom. My question is simple: where is this stated? No need to comment on other editors, just point me to where this was decided in Arbcom. Since this was the entire rationale for your removal of the book from the article, my request is I believe quite logical.
• Astynax the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History/Evidence demonstrates nothing. It's just a compilation of how several editors saw the issue. What "footnotes" are you talking about?

Either of you feel free to point me to the right link. Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments made by arbitrators and even the motions passed confirm that it will be impossible to find such a statement or prohibition in the cited ArbCom:

Principle: Neutral point of view and role of the Arbitration Committee 7) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources fairly represented in proportion to prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. While reasonable editors may, in good faith, disagree about the weight of particular viewpoints in reliable sources, it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle such good-faith content disputes among editors. However, editors may not assign to a viewpoint a weight that is either so high or so low as to be outside the bounds of reasonableness; such actions violate the neutral point of view policy. Passed 10 to 0, 04:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And even individual comments:

• "Content disagreements are not addressed by this Committee; user misconduct, which may include disruptive editing and misrepresentation of sources, is addressed, when other dispute methods have failed. We could use some input here from previously uninvolved editors with subject-matter expertise as to which side of the line this dispute falls on." --Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• "I'm seeing this as a content dispute. Both editors have worked on the Juan Manuel de Rosas article since 2009, and there is disagreement over the content, and the two parties have been discussing the matter. Sometimes it can be difficult to reach a solution; however, it is not ArbCom's place to make a decision on content. ArbCom looks into conduct disputes, and I'm not seeing where there are conduct issues." --SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of those comments and my understanding of WP:RS, each source should be examined individually and in regard to the content that they are backing up. --Langus (t) 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Langus-TxT, could you explain to us why do you insist on claiming that the revisionist Pacho O'Donnell is a reliable source, knowing that revisionism is an authoritarian, anti-Semitic and racist political movement? --Lecen (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lecen and Astynax: I am still waiting for a link to the Arbcom decision you mentioned. If there is no such thing (as I suspect and Langus seems to confirm) I'm going to ask either of you to restore the book you removed from the article. You don't get to unilaterally decide a historian is WP:FRINGE just because you don't like him. At the very least it should be discussed in WP:RSN. I am all for having such a discussion but in the meantime you need to either produce a link showing that O'Donnell is indeed a rejected author or restore the appropriate source into the article. I'll await your comments. Gaba ^(talk) 11:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I already told you where to look at. I can't do no more than that or I'd have to mention the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban. You cab either read it by yourself or forget it. I won't draw it for you. This is my last warning about this matter: Pacho O'Donnel is a revisionist. Argentine revisionism is regarded as fringe theory by mainstream historiography. Argentine revisionism is an authoritarian, anti-semitic and racist political movement. And lastly: Pacho O'Donnel's book has NO reference matter and no bibliography, which would be enough to not allow it's use as reliable source, even if it wasn't revisionist. If you insist on using an authoritarian, anti-semitic and racist source I'll will report you and you'll probably end up banned from editing anything related to Latin American history. It's your choice. If it was up to me, you would both stop being annoying and would do something truly helpful, like writing an article, doing research for an article, etc... --Lecen (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Politically motivated and in close alliance with neorevisionists

“ Politically motivated and in close alliance with neorevisionists, some of Menem's successors in office have honored Rosas on banknotes, postage stamps and monuments, causing mixed reactions among the public. ”

Lecen says[14] that authors are referring to the Kirchner couple, but that doesn't explain much. I presume that he's referring to the "Menem's successors" expression, but the Kirchners had nothing to do with the metro station (which was the decision of Buenos Aires' local government) or the 20 Pesos bill (which is due to Menem). Also, "Politically motivated" and "in close alliance with neorevisionists" is highly controversial.

Right now I'm very doubtful about the sentence as a whole, so I expect Lecen to transcribe the precise quotes to support this edit from the cited sources:

• Goebel, pages 217–218 & 220
• Johnson, page 133
• Lanctot, pages 1 & 4

In the meanwhile I have tagged the expression with a redirect to this section. Thanks. --Langus (t) 03:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

What metro station? No metro station is mentioned in the article. Would it be too much to ask of you to actually read the article before coming here and being annoying? Really, could you make an effort? --Lecen (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Lecen the tone of your comment is definitely not helpful. Could you perhaps be a bit more WP:CIVIL so we can all discuss the matter in an amicable way? Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 11:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)