Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:21, 4 October 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juan Manuel de Rosas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Argentina Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine history. If you would like to participate, you can improve Juan Manuel de Rosas, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force South American military history task force

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 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:

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

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 , , , , , . 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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".

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 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 18:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 ? 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)

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 a 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (military) articles
• Mid-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Argentine articles
• Top-importance Argentine articles
• WikiProject Argentina articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles