Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Life of Rosas

I've added some coments on the article about his treatment of the indigeous people. The article did not mention that he was a fluid speaker of the pampa language, and a close firends with many Native-American Leaders, which I have added now.

However, you are right, this article does nead a big cleanup. And some good resources as well. At the resources I have added one of the most complete and impartial (which when it comes to Rosas' life, it's really hard to get) books written about Rosas. The biography in question is entitled Juan Manuel de Rosas, and it was written by Argentine Historian Pacho O'Donnell.

If it's okay, I will use this very complete biography to add some much needed info in this article, by translating many of its passages from Spanish to English. However, since English is my second language, I'm sure that it will requiere some spellchecking.

I agree that the article can be improved. But contributions should be clearly sourced and readable. I find the additions merely anecdotic and of poor quality with tons of grammar and spelling mistakes. Bakersville 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I give up

Okay I just give up. It doesn't matter what I do, how much I actually specify my sources, everything I contribute gets deleted. And for reasons that I don't even understand. The fact that he ran away actually specifies WHY he changed his name, something that is not explained on the original article. Also that he participated on the British Invasions but not on the May Revolution shows that even at an early age he considered more important to defend the nation than doing revolts, Rosas was a leader that, to him, obediance and complete order was very important. And as the explanation on how he handled his relatins with Native Americans Tribes shows how different his relation with them was when comparing them with other people of that time. Rosas negotiated with them, treating as foreign leaders and respecting them as such, while other pople like Sarmiento, Mitre and Roca treated them as inferior beings, not even humans, and slaughtered. The article also fails to mention that the decition to execute O'Gorman was one that he regreted for the rest of his life, and that he had severe pressure from the Catholic Church (protecting the church was one of the three terms and conditions that he had to do while in office), and that even the press released by his political enemies in Montevideo, the Unitarios, constantly wrote that that relation between O'Gorman and the priest showed how Rosas' government didn't respect even the most sacred things by allowing this to happen. Also, the article doesn't mention that, after he was appointed as governor on his second term, Rosas only accepted after a suffrage of Buenos Aires, to see if the people actually wanted him as governor (a sufragge which he won).

Again, I clearly stated my sources, the biography written by Argentine Historian Pacho O'Donnell, but it seems that its not enough for you.

Also, I don't understan why this gets erased, since other articles in Wikipedia state things that would also be considered 'trivial information' and 'anechdotes', like how Mr. Roger's car was stolen, or how El Cid came to obtain his war horse. And those things don't get erased.

I just give up. I have more important things to do than to edit an article, and seeing my additions eraesed like that is just too frustrating. So I'll just leave.

Before I leave, I would like to do one more thing. I Dispute the Neutrality of this Article. It clearly focuses on 'Rosas is a dictator/tyrant' and it does not mention all the things he did for Argentina, like keeping it together (if it weren't for Rosas, Argentina would have been divided into several different countries), defending its soverignity, and setting the bases for a centralized government under one authority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucasliso (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

The information at the bottom of the article is incorrect. Rosas was never the President of Argentina, since Argentina used a federative system. He was just the governor of the Buenos Aires Province. This article should be corrected as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.140.130 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

President??

Rosas was NEVER the president of Argentina, only the governor of Buenos Aires. He had a lot of power over other provincies, but he was not president.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furgonero (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a photograph of Rosas?

Is there a photograph of Rosas? --Lecen (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't. The technology was already available, but Rosas rejected to pose for one. He considered that it was a "foreign" thing, or something like that. Of course, photos of this time period needed the subject to pose for some time, "casual" photos did not exist yet, so if someone did not want to pose for a photo, then no photo. MBelgrano (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd. I could understand such behavior until 1852. But he lived until the 1870s, when photographs became quite common. It's shame he never allowed to have a picture from him. Thank you. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-French blockade

While the whole article is rather weak, this section seems crippled. It more or less sizzles out in a context description and doesn't really go over the culminating conflicts involved, the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado, a costly victory by Anglo-French forces followed by the Battle of Quebracho, where the European invaders are repulsed. See here, on the site of Buenos Aires' British Cemetery about Juan Bautista Thorne, the son of a US Independence War veteran that arrived in Argentina around 1825 and fought in various battles under Rosas, for brief descriptions of the battles in Spanish. Who is like God? (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article as of today has only praise in the introductory section. There are plenty of respectable opinions that he was a brutal dictator. In Argentina federalist Rosas's name is not strongly represented in place names, but his arch-enemy unitarian Sarmiento (who said about Rosas "Barbarians! Men can be killed, but not ideas") is widely commemorated. The article seems to support largely the federalist side of the unitarian-federalist conflict (unitarians wanted a single country, federalists a country made of a federation of states); unitarians are described, without reference, as running a reign of terror. Pol098 (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the initial rejection of Rosas was politically biased, and not the result of impartial historiographic research, see the section at the end. The ideas of Sarmiento or Mitre about Rosas are long outdated, and Rosas is currently recognized as an Argentine hero as well (see "legacy" section). Rosas perspective about national organization is already mentioned, and the modern criticism held about him (his refusal to call for a new constituent assembly) is mentioned as well. As for the unitarians wanting Argentina as a single country, have you heard about the september 11 revolution of 1852? Cambalachero (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll have some discussion and votes. I won't vote, as you suggest my information is out of date. Pol098 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussions are not settled by votes. And what do you want to vote, anyway? Cambalachero (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

True, I should have said discussion on neutrality, with either agreement it's OK and removal of the POV tag, or changes to the text. Again, there's little I can contribute (unless I research the literature comprehensively). The introduction in Spanish Wikipedia has less praise, without denouncing him, and there is discussion of attitudes, with the comment that consensus won't be reached any time soon. Pol098 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We can include a comment about the existence of the dispute, linking to the section below. I was working in this article some time ago, but I left it half-made, and hadn't worked with the lead yet (as it is a summary of the whole article, I usually leave it for the end). Have in mind that "consensus (about Rosas) won't be reached any time soon" from that article is original research, we don't know when (or if) such consensus will be achieved. Cambalachero (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of Spanish Wikipedia is unreferenced and plenty of original research, yes.

I won't say any more about the subject of the article and the accuracy (or otherwise) of the content, but will make some remarks on the article as an article.

There is no question that Rosas is a contentious subject; but the introduction to the article is laudatory (much more so than the intro of the article on Nelson Mandela, generally regarded as a notably good leader, and not contentious despite violence and revolution in his background; and what is said in the NM intro is referenced in the body) and not referenced or supported by referenced text in the body.

I'll pick a few points at random from the body; there are plenty more. Before discussing criticism we find "Rosas' opponents during his rule were dissidents, such as...". "Opponents" and "dissidents" are almost synonymous, obviously his opponents were going to criticise him. The sentence seems merely a way to smear the opponents before stating their arguments. Similarly "it was decided [by his adversaries] to portray him in a negative light".

"The unitarians started a reign of terror..." (unreferenced). For anyone except Hitler I'd expect something like "the opponents kidnapped and killed 123 people as documented by [ref to reports by outsiders] in the documented Xyx incident, closed the newspaper "Daily Blurb" indefinitely [ref], and were responsible for many more such events [ref]". Maybe followed by "this was described as a reign of terror by [ref]". There are no references at all in the section claiming the reign of terror. I'm not saying it's necessarily untrue - how can I know, there's no information either supporting or contradicting.

I can't judge how reliable a cross-section of opinion the references that are quoted are, but the rest of the article doesn't make me confident that all points of view are represented.

That's a summary of why the POV and Refimprove tags are, in my opinion, justified whatever the validity of what's said. Pol098 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As said, it's a half-made work. Yes, I have seen the details on Lavalle's and Paz's governments, and they really were as you described. I won't, however, go into much detail here: I will describe them at Juan Lavalle and José María Paz each, and then link (this is, after all, the biography of Rosas, not the history of Argentina, and I'm afraid I have already gone a little off-topic here and there). There are both reports by outsiders, and reports by the unitarian themselves, who were actually proud of their actions. For the moment, to have an idea of what kind of man was Lavalle, you can consider quotes like this. "Those barbarians would deceive themselves if in their desperation they beg for our mercy. It is precise to behead them all. Let's purge society of this monsters. Death, death without mercy", "Discipline among our soldiers? No! They want to kill? Let them kill! They want to pillage? Let them pillage!" Cambalachero (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I take the comments into account. I'm currently busy with other articles, but will return to complete this one at some point; I do not object keeping the maintenance templates in the meantime Cambalachero (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We continue at cross-purposes. You report nasty things Lavalle said; but I haven't been trying to support one side of a fierce polemic. Rather, I repeat (1) the article almost entirely lacks supporting references; (2) it gives the impression that Rosas did nothing bad, and his opponents did nothing good - he comes up smelling of rosas. While this could be true, experience with other historical figures and the extensive denunciation of Rosas in the past (yes, the victors of wars write the history books, this will never be the whole story) suggest that it is very likely that there is plenty that is bad, and plenty that is good, on both sides. Reading the article as it is today I would come away with the impression that Rosas was altogether better than Nelson Mandela and Winston Churchill (generally praised everywhere, but advocated and practised aerial bombing and gassing of civilian populations in the 1920s); and that his opponents were on a par with Saddam Hussein. Pol098 (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I do have to agree with Pol098 that this article has some pretty serious issues in it. I don't know if Rosas is seen as a "hero" in present-day Argentina, but what I do know is that English, Spanish and Portuguese-written books despict him as a brutal dictator. This article avoids completely using the term "dictator" to describe Rosas and in some moments falls into an unfunny comedy by saying that they were no more than "sum of all power". --Lecen (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

POV 2: association with present-day politics

In the section POV which I started I seem to have stumbled into a hornet's nest. What I suspect may be the case (I don't have clear information to support it, but have looked at a few references) is that being for and against Rosas has some symbolic significance related to recent Argentine politics, so that people for and against current opposing and radically polarised political views consider Rosas to be a saint or a devil, and his opponents devils or saints. So, on the one hand, I'd expect that if several people edit this article (which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment - I don't count myself as I don't have a viewpoint) there will be contention and lots of POV content until consensus is reached. Additionally, the fact that there is this association of Rosas with current factions (if true) is itself notable and has an important place in the article. I'm not in a position to help. Pol098 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what do you consider "modern". There have been such disputes in the times of Hipólito Yrigoyen first, and then again with Juan Domingo Perón and the Revolución Libertadora that deposed him (which repeated a quote from Urquiza, setting a paralelism between both cases). They are "modern" in the sense that it happen a century after Rosas, but on the other hand, they happen half a century ago. Rosas has no political significance in 2011, he's just another historical figure. Cambalachero (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert in Rosas but this book by Richards (note nr 9 from the lead) does not seem the most appropriate reference: http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TheLinkPersona.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.226.107 (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Why is there a string of 10 citations in the lead paragraph? Generally we don't need any citations in the lead and leave them for the body of the article. Having a list of ten sources is not only excessive but quite distracting. 174.62.136.139 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, 1. If you want more detail, Rosas ran away at a young age and changed his name to Rosas from Rozas (this was mentioned). But did you all know he was naked when he did this? He left his parents home, leaving anything that belonged to his parents to begin a new, truly independent life, and then began to associate and gain the respect and admiration of various gaucho leaders. Also...someone should EXPLICITLY state Rosas was a cuadillo. He exemplifies caudillismo. I don't have sources right now for all this info, but it's legitimate and I'm sure someone else can search them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.0.116 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Who is the most knowledgeable and well known historian over this topic?

I will find out for you, since this article is terrible and in need of much work on economic/social/historic background, and made mostly on biased comments by his opponents, the "unitarios" (as Sarmiento). The power of Rosas cannot be explained solely by saying he had a lot of cattle and had a strong personality that appealed the gauchos. There are also other inaccuracies. I will list them in terrible order also, since I'm not used to work in Wikipedia and not used to your customs and rigour standards.

1.- He didn't control the whole of the pampa cattle frontier, if you consider that it was distributed in different provincies and amongst different "estancieros" or large ranch owners. 2.- Can't tell which European expeditionary forces he defeated. This is doubtful. He did battle an Anglo-French force that tried to establish free navigation of the Paranà river (and free trade), but the battery that tried to stop the ships was defeated ("Vuelta de Obligado"). When I say defeated I mean that they couldn't fulfil its objective: stopping the ships. 3.- Besides the term "nation" applied to what at that time was a confederation of provincies with loose political ties (there was not even a Constitution accepted by all), Rosas could not be defined as a "dictator" for all the provincies. It's a bit more complex. He was indeed the more powerful caudillo, but he was not the only one. He was only in charge of relationships with other countries, and had no formal power over the other provincies and caudillos -even if, informally, he was the puppet-master. To reach to that position, he had to fight unitarios and federales (his "own" "party"/or faction - even if he was not very "federal" himself), and -probably- kill other caudillos, as Facundo Quiroga. 3.- "Rosas attempted to reincorporate Uruguay and Paraguay as Argentinean provinces..." This is inaccurate. The "Pronunciamiento de Urquiza", the act by which Urquiza, Entre Rìos "caudillo", declared its intentions of owerthrowing Rosas, was triggered by other political events, but mostly by Urquiza's intention of liberating its trade with Brazil and foreign powers in certain goods for its own profit. Also, the puny "unitario" force in Montevideo could hardly represent a problem for Rosas, even if he besieged through allies and own forces the city for a long time before. There are specific economic reasons that can explain the rise and fall or Rosas ("saladero" cycle and new agricultural/pecuarian cycles rising at his fall) that can better explain this. Britain was a major player in all this period, trying to find a valuable associate in the pampas to introduce its industrial goods and buy cattle and grain, and Rosas was not the correct person for doing this at that time. 4.- "Rosas wanted to rid Argentina of European influence and cultivate a feeling of nationalism among Argentinians..." Well, in fact commerce with European powers thrived in some periods under Rosas, so we can hardly say that he wanted to "rid" Argentina of their influence. European businessmen were established in Buenos Aires and were influent during periods of Rosas government

I really need more reading on the subject, but I'll try to help with a new article for this guy, who influenced the "country"'s life for a good buch of years. FLRD

Something that must be told

I just wanted to tell that this was the most ridiculously hilarious excuse to revert someone else's edit I've seen to this day on Wikipedia. No wonder this article sucks. --Lecen (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder by what criteria it's called "iconic"? Arguably, the picture on the money would be the most "iconic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> Go and see the 20$ banknotes, the monument in Palermo, the monument in Vuelta de Obligado, the tomb in La Recoleta, the portrait at the hall of Latin American heroes at the Casa Rosada, the cover of "Todo es Historia" in the issue about Rosas, the cover of most books about Rosas... or just a basic google image search of the terms "Juan Manuel de Rosas". Everywhere it is either the portrait by Gaetano Descalzi or a derivative work of it. It is easier to invert the question: by what criteria can you deny that it is iconic? Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The current picture looks fairly much like the one on the money. The one Lecen had posted doesn't even look like the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of soruced content

I know that Cambalachero is engaged in a fierce quest to whitewash Argentine history, turning good people into bad, and bad into good. Having said, I want to make clear that I will oppose any GA or FA nomination of this article. --Lecen (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't fight the British. He was an ammunition boy. He also didn't fight with the Migueletes. He was part of that cavalry corps but was sick during the entire conflict. Anyone who had actually read a single biography of Rosas would have known that. But someone who uses a website as source... I wonder if you will include Rosas' monarchism too. Because he was a monarchist and his daughter was acclaimed his heiress. Not only that but he wanted to annex Uruguay and Paraguay and create an Empire in the Plata. What about the fact that he opposed the "May Revolution"? Will that be mentioned too? Whitewashing, whitewashing... --Lecen (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard

A thread regarding this article's lack of neutrality and wrong view of historical facts has been opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. The link is here. --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

War of the Confederation

According to the main article (War of the Confederation), it was Argentina who declared war ([1]). Yet, this article has the following sentence:

• "Andrés de Santa Cruz, protector of the Peru–Bolivian Confederation, declared the War of the Confederation against Argentina and Chile."

This is probably worth discussing. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article

I created this thread with the purpose of reviewing the article and reveal all serious issues in it.

Sources

The best source in English about the life of Juan Manuel de Rosas is John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. This is the second edition of his biography and it was published in 2001. The first edition is called Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas and was published in 1981. It is regarded as the "definitive" biography of Rosas by Encyclopædia Britannica.[2] Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[3] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[4] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[5]

No matter what edition you look after, both are universally used as main sources regarding Rosas in English-written books.

We do not need to stick to sources written in English when they are outdated merely because they are in English. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. The historiography of Rosas is a topic in itself, with books about that specific topic, and none of them considered Lynch even worth a single mention. Cambalachero (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dictatorship

According to Cambalachero (also known as MBelgrano), the main contributor in this article, (see article's lead) "Argentine historians of the XIX century, such as Bartolomé Mitre, aligned with the Unitarian party, considered him a ruthless dictator" while "New historians of the XX century, such as José María Rosa, consider him instead a defender of national sovereignty". And he concludes: "historiographical dispute about Rosas is currently considered to be over, and most modern historians do not engage in it". In other words: only historians connected to Rosas' opposition regarded him a dictator, and that only in the 19th century. Since the 20th century he is no longer regarded a dictator and there is no doubt or dispute about it any longer. Wrong.

Every single work in English regards him a dictator. From Britannica ("...who was governor (1835–52) of Buenos Aires with dictatorial powers") to Lynch's Argentine Caudillo[6] and several other works which were conveniently removed by Cambalachero from this article.[7]

Even Rosas saw himself as a dictator. The title he gave for himself was "Tirano ungido por Dios para salvar a la patria" ("Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland").[8][9] He said once: "I have always admired autocratic dictators who have been the first servants of their people. That is my great title: I have always sought to serve the contry". (Lynch, 2001, p.163) He regarded the dictatorship as best form of government: "For me the ideal of good government would be paternal autocracy, intelligent, desinterested and indefatigable..." (Lynch, 2001, p.75) A passage of Lynch's books is revealing: "In short, Rosas ws an absolute ruler. 'As he told himself', remarked the British minister Southern, 'he wields a power more absolute than any monarch on his throne.'" (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

It is not me who says that the dispute is over: it is the references, left at the respective section. Horacio González is more than just a simple author of the lot, he is the president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic. If he says that there was a paradigm shift in the way Rosas is considered, it is a voice to be heard. The current consensus means that modern historians do not explain the actions of Rosas based on personal impulses (such as evil, greed, hunger for power; or patriotism, loyalty), but on actual poltical contexts of the time. The Great Man theory is rapidly getting outdated everywhere, and it already did for Rosas in Argentina. The old manichaeisms are outdated. There may be an occational exception, but the body of the Argentine historians have left that stage long ago.

Are there books that use the word "dictator" to talk about Rosas? Perhaps. We shouldn't use a word merely because the usage is verifiable: we also have a rule to avoid Words that may introduce bias. If there is a dispute, we describe the dispute, we do not engage in it. Note as well that sources that make a mere use of a word in passing, without explaining the usage, do not count as "engaging" in the dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Elected governor or dictator?

This article, as written by Cambalachero, presents the idea that was en elected governor and that he was granted the "Sum of public power" (that is, the power to rule as dictaror) by a popular plebiscite where "[e]very free man within the age of majority living in the city was allowed to vote" (see "second government" section).

First let's talk about elections in Argentina and the role of the House of Representatives: "The House of Representatives remained a creature of the governor, whom it formally 'elected'. It was his custom to send his resignation to the House from time to time. It was never accepted, for the House of Representatives represented only the regime ... The assembly, lacking for the most part legislative function and financial control, was largely an exercise in public relations for the benefit of foreign and doemstic audiences, and it normally responded obsequiously to the iniatives of the governor." (Lynch, 2001, p.81)

What about Judicial branch? Let's see: "Rosas not only controlled the legislature but also dominated the judicial power. He not only made law; he interpreted it, changed it, and applied it. The machinery of justice no doubt continued to function: the justices of peace, judges for civil and criminal cases, the appeal judge, and the supreme court all gave institutional legitimacy to the regime. But the law did not rule. Arbitrary intervention by the execute undermined the independence of the judiciary. Rosas took many cases on himself, read the evidence..., examined the police reports, and, as he sat alone at his desk, gave judgment, writing on files 'shoot him', 'fine him', imprison him,' 'to the army'." (Lynch, 2001, p.81)

And the bureaucracy? "Rosas also controlled the bureaucracy. One of his first and most uncompromising measures was to purge the old administration; this action was the simplest way of removing political enemies and rewarding followers". (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

Rosas could rule over Buenos Aires province, but not over the rest of the Argentine provinces. Not at first, it's true. "The system of government Rosas and his colleagues operated was primitive in the extreme and completely lacked a constitutional framework. They did not govern Argentina. The thirteen provinces governed themselves independently, though they were grouped in the general Confederation of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. Even without formal union, however, the provinces were forced to delegate certain common itnerests to the government of Buenos Aires, mainly defense and foreign policy..." (Lynch, 2001, p.82) However, as time passed, "[h]is policy was to wear down the provincial caudillos [the rulers of the Argentine provinces], to conquer them by patience. In each of the provinces, he managed gradually to impose allied, satellite, or weak governors." (Lynch, 2001, p.83)

Ah, the myth of the "fake" resignations. I have seen that explanation sometimes, and I always noted a missing point in it: which was the purpose? If Rosas' power was so absolute, and he did not had the intention to resign, why bother with that charade at all? Ah, yes, of course he purged the old administration. Does Lynch give more detail about that "old administration" that he purged? No? It was the administration of Juan Lavalle, who took power by a military coup, executed the deposed governor Manuel Dorrego, and purged the old administration. Rosas purged Lavalle's men, and restored the administration that was ruling before the coup. That's how he got the nickname "The restorer of laws" in the first place.

The last paragraph is clearly faulty. The lack of a constitution does not mean there was no formal union: the provinces were still united by provincial pacts. That state of things was not created by Rosas, it predates his first term as governor. The provinces were not "forced" into it, and note that managing the foreign relations includes the payment of the external debt in the package. The provinces did not "delegate" their defense in Buenos Aires, it was a mutual defensive alliance. If any member of the Federal Pact was attacked, the other members would go to the defense. This benefits Buenos Aires (if attacked, it has allies), but also gave obligations (if other provinces are attacked, Buenos Aires must go to help) Cambalachero (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero, you should once and for all really stop handpicking the information that better suits your needs. "Rivadavia resigned, leaving to his successor Manuel Dorrego the tasks of arranging the peace with Brazil and restoring domestic order. Dorrego went further. He nullified the centralist constitution, reaffirmed provincial autonomy, and assumed the title of governor of Buenos Aires. Returning Unitarian troops overthrew and executed Dorrego soon afterward. His death set off a chain reaction ending with a new rebellion by Federalist landowners. The leader of this uprising was Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793-1877) ... Rosas effectively crushed the Unitarians in Buenos Aires." (Source: Whigham, Thomas L. The Paraguayan War: causes and early conduct. v.1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2002, p.51) Thus, it's no surprise that the Unitarians fought a men who simply threw the constitution into the trash. Now, the same books says soon after: "In Buenos Aires, demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca." (Whigham, 2002, p.53) Every single source mentions that Rosas was a dictator and that he had a death squad called the Mazorca. Except, of course, for Cambalachero's sources. --Lecen (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Dorrego did not nullify the national constitution. Stop to think about that for a moment: can a governor of a province, or even a president, nullify a constitution? No: the 1826 constitution was nullified by the only authority who could do so: the Constituent Assembly. After Rivadavia's resignation, Vicente López led a brief interim, and returned the national organization to the confederal state from before the assembly, leaving instructions to call a new constituent assembly (source: "Julio César Furundarena, "Historia Constitucional Argentina", p.290-292). By the way, Whigham forgot to mention that the 1826 constitution was rejected in all the other provinces, you can't blame a single man of Buenos Aires, or even a local movement in the province, for the failure of it (but perhaps Whigham does not go to great detail anyway because his work is about a conflict that took place half a century afterwards). And another detail: you imply that Lavalle led a coup against Dorrego because of the fate of the 1826 constitution. Then why didn't he restore it, or nullify the nullification, in the half a year he ruled the province? Cambalachero (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Elections under Rosas

"The system was a fraud and a farce: the government sent a list of official candidates, and it was the task of the justices of the peace to ensure that these were elected. Open and verbal voting, the rights of the justices to exclude voters and candidates whom they considered unqualified, the intimidation of opposition; these and many other malpractices reduced the elections to absurdity. Rosas frankly admited that elections had to be controlled, and he condemned as hypocricy the demand for free elections. His government, he told the assembly [the House of Representatives] in 1837, 'has sent many worthy residents and magistrates throughout the province lists which contained the names of those citizens who in its opinion were fit to represent the rights of their country, in order to favor their election, if so they wished.' In practice the Rosas lists were an absolute order, and those gauchos [the Argentine peasantry] who went to the polls did as voting fodder." (Lynch, 2001, p.50)

No, finally, let's talk about the plebiscite where the Argentines willing (or was it?) allowed Rosas to become a dictator: "The plebiscite was held on March 26-28 in the parishes of Buenos Aires city, and the electorate had to vote yes or no for the projected law... First, the plebiscite was held only in Buenos Aires city... Second, whereas normally only a few hundred people voted at elections, this time greater numbers participated. The result was 9,316 for the new law, 4 against. If we assume a population of some 60,000 in Buenos Aires and a voting population of 20,000, Rosas received a vote of 50 percent of the electorate, and even this portion urged to the polls by a mixture of official propaganda and pressure from activists. The menace exerted by Rosas' political machine was real enough, as shall be seen. For this reason the heavy abstentions were significant; to abstain was a positive and dangerous act, and for many people a militant one. Rosas never repeated the experiment." (Lynch, 2001, p.80)

And Sarmiento (who can never be accused of supporting Rosas) said "No se tiene noticia de ciudadano alguno que no fuese a votar... debo decirlo en obsequio a la verdad histórica: nunca hubo gobierno más popular, más deseado, ni más bien sostenido por la opinión" ("there is no information about any citizen that did not vote... I must say it as a gft to historical truth: there was never a government more popular, desired and better held by the opinion") Cambalachero (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, Lynch's text seems like a plagiarism of "De la revolución de independencia a la confederación rosista" by Tulio Halperin Donghi, p. 330. And worse, a plagiarism that conveniently forgets a detail added by Donghi: the "experiment" was the conditions of the election, not the elections themselves, which were not cancelled. Cambalachero (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

State terrorism

Rosas was not merely a dictator, but he ruled with terror. The words "Terror", "Terrorism" and "Terrorist" have been often used to describe his regime, his practices and himself (and his allies). There is an entire chapter in John Lynch's work aptly called "The Terror" that goes from page 95 until page 119. Theodore Link and Rose McCarthy said that "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country."[10] David Marley said that "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..."[11] James Schofield Saeger said that "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country."[12] James D Henderson said that "The blocaked damaged the Buenos Aires economy and gave Rosas justification for a wave of terror against his domestic foes."[13] Jason Wilson said that "Juan Manuel de Rosas (sometimes spelt Rozas), the rich and well-bred landowner who became dictator of Buenos Aires and ruled with terror, lived..."[14] Carlos Ramirez-Faria said that "Juan Manuel de Rosas pacified and centralized the country through a liberal use of terrorist methods."[15]

Rosas could be pleasant and charming when needed, but according to John Lynch, "he was a hard taskmaster and could suddenly fly into a rage and emit threats of throat cutting like the vilest of his henchmen." (Lynch, 2001, p.86) But what was the Terror?

This article mentions the Mazorca only twice. The Mazorca, or officially, the Sociedad Popular Restauradora, was the paramilitary wing of Rosas' regime. It was the equivalent to Fascist Italy's Blackshirts and Nazi Germany's SS. According to the article here at Wikipedia (unsurprisingly created and written by Cambalachero) about it, the Sociedad Popular Restauradora (or Mazorca) killed "nearly 20 in 1840 and 20 more in 1842." They actually executed around 2,000 people, if not more, from 1829 until 1852. (Lynch, 2001, p.118) There is no mention of the thousands of political executions and tortured people in this article about Rosas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen (talk • contribs) 14:04, December 17, 2012

And now the contradictions begin. The Mazorca made Rosas the master of the country? You have cited before that each province managed its own affairs, with some exceptions such as foreign relations. Police force was not among those exceptions. The 20 and 20 are the cases which actually have documentary support. The idea of the Mazorca leading an ordeal of executions during all days of all the Rosas regime was mentioned a lot in the past, but fails to locate any actual documentary support. Note that Lynch speaks of actions of the Mazorca "from 1829 to 1852", but actually that organization was created in 1833 and disbanded in 1846. Which suggest that Lynch merely repeats misconceptions he read somewhere else, instead of investigating them himself (as any serious historian, not a mere divulgator, would do) Cambalachero (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you did not provide a rebuttal to the notion that Rosas ruled by terror. Binksternet (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The concept of state terrorism (or "terror" for that matter) is a XX century concept, which is unprofessional to extrapolate to historical periods when no such concept existed. It is also commonplace that the state gets more strict during wartime. But let an author say it. According to Marcelo Lascano, "The 'bloody methods' must be associated to the 1840 mutinies, and they are sanctions to the collusion of national peoples with the foreign invader and not a natural predisposition of the regime. During WWII, and before, during the War of Secession (1861-1865), the United States developed discriminatory methods to secure national security, and nobody objected it because it was an undeniable reality. Normalized in 1845 the situation in La Plata, the government, as it was logical, began to restore the properties once confiscated, as John Lynch also accepted". And I might add that it was also after such normalization that the Mazorca was disbanded, in 1846. Félix Luna: "It is very difficult to make an overall judgment of the Restorer. To formulate it, means to fall into unfair generalizations, and worse, judge a man of the past through modern standards. Can we consider the respect held for human life in those tremendous decades, according to our modern sensitivity? Is it possible to understand the danger of national disintegration or severe impairment of our independence, when such dangers seem unthinkable today?" Lascano also adds: "Neither Washington first nor Abraham Lincoln almost a century after the challenge to George III, King of England, doubted between the reforms that delighted them or the triumph of weapons when the national security was at stake. The consolidation of national unity came first, as the minimal political logic seems to advise. This is what, as method, drived the federals, with Rosas at their head, at least while the pacification of the country was still an unresolved issue. It shall never be forgotten that between the aggression of a US ship to the Malvinas in 1831 up to Caseros in 1852 the country was involved almost without interruption in civil and international wars of an unrepeated magnitude".

One of the sources also says that many people fled the country. Let's see Lascano. "The responsability of the phenomenon is attributed almost exclusively to Rosas. However, it began at early 1829, headed by Rivadavia, Julián Segundo de Agüero, Salvador María del Carril, the brothers Juan Cruz and Florencio Varela and other important unitarians, surely motivated by the problems caused since 1828 by the insurrection of Lavalle and its terrible institutional consequences. Here it is worth remembering that Rosas took power in december 1829 [...] Sarmiento only moved to Chile in 1840, apparently without any violence towards him [...]. Dalmasio Vélez Sarsfield emigrated in 1842 - the year of greatest tension - because he felt persecuted, but acconding to González Arzac (following Abel Chaneton) he returned 'to put his talent as jurist at the service of the country, not Rosas'". The author details somewhere else in the book how many people who had emigrated began to return to the country during the brief end of military conflicts mentioned, with Rosas still in power. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Expansionist plans

Rosas wished to annex Argentine neighbors, Paraguay and Uruguay. This was said by Paraguayan historian Cecilo Baez (Bosquejo historico del Brasil. Assuncion: La Colmena, 1940, p.75: "Para Rosas, Paraguay y Uruguay no eran sino provincias rebeldes de la Confederacion Argentina") and even by Argentine revisionist (that is, pro-Rosas) Pacho O'Donnel (Juan Manuel de Rosas: El maldito de la historia oficial. Buenos Aires: NORMA, 2008, p.300). John Lynch, on the other hand, believed that Rosas wanted to annex Paraguay and keep Uruguay as client state (Lynch, 2001, p.140): "Rosas had never recoginzed Paraguaya as an independent nation. He still called it the província del Paraguay and sought its 'recovery', aiming to extend the frontiers of the confederation to those of the old Spanish viceroyalty. Uruguay was an exception because its independence had been secured by treaty and its conquest would be extremely difficult. So it was improbable that Rosas wished to destroy the independence of Uruguay; it suited him better to reduce it to satellitle status, the natural destiny of a weaker neighbor."

There is not a single mention of any of this in this article.

Paraguay was an Argentne province until 1842, when it declared its independence. Rosas did not accept it, but it is incorrect to to say that he wanted to "annex" Paraguay, same as Spain did not want to "annex" its South American colonies, nor Brazil wanted to "annex" the Riograndese Republic. As for Uruguay, Rosas does not need motivations: it was Fructuoso Rivera who declared war to Argentina, so Rosas waged the war against him (and against others that may ally with him in such conflict) until the end of the conflict. Cambalachero (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

See the Declaration of war to Bolivia, 4º declaration, pages 4 and 5. "That the Argentine Confederation, in the fight it has been provoked into, holds no territorial pretension beyond its natural borders, and protests in the presence of the universe and for the posterity that it takes weapons to save the integrity, independence and honour of the Argentine Confederation". In fact, Felipe Heredia, governor of Salta, requested to Rosas to include the reannexation of Tarija (Ruiz Moreno, p. 69), but as you can see, he declined it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Platine War

The international war between the Argentine Confederation and an alliance of the Empire of Brazil, Uruguay and the Argentine provinces of Corrientes and Entre Ríos is not even mentioned in here. In fact, Brazil's role is oddly downplayed: "Without ships, Urquiza sought the help of the Empire of Brazil as well. However, he thought that the Brazilian help would be of little use, and only agreed to accept them by the intervention of Herrera" and "...where Entre Ríos and Corrientes would lead the operation and Uruguay and Brazil would provide only auxiliar armies. Urquiza defeated Rosas in the Battle of Caseros, on February 3, 1852".

Actually, Rosas himself regarded Brazil as the main enemy and as the key player that led to his downfall. "Rosas had at that point [1851] a preoccupation and obsession: the Empire of Brazil" ("Rosas tenía en aquel momento una preocupación y una obsesión: el imperio del Brasil." (O'Donnel, 2008, p.300) Also important: "Rosas himself believed that he had been defeated not by the [Argentine] people but by foreigners. He asserted after [the Battle of] Caseros, 'It is not the people who have overthrown me. It is the macocos ["monkeys", a racist nod to Black Brazilians], the Brazilians." (Lynch, 2001, p.159)

The article also ignores that 12,000 Brazilians were about to invade Argentina when Rosas unexpectedly gave up after a single battle of that the Brazilian warships were blockading Buenos Aires.

Those opinions of Rosas are mere political analysis. If the article says that Entre Ríos and Corrientes led the operations and Uruguay and Brazil would provide only auxiliar armies, it is because the written text of the alliance between the four specifically arranged the command structure that way. The idea that it was actually a fight against Brazil, despite being mentioned by some revisionists, never got much hold. After all, this "war" does not even have a Spanish name! And, as once pointed in the talk page, only 50 English books talk about a "Platine war". I will also mention that the author of the book used as a reference of that section is a member of the National Academy of History of Argentina Cambalachero (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The text of treaty is detailed here. See article 2: "Under the above statement the states of Entre Rios and Corrientes take the lead of the operations of the war, becoming principal part in it, and the Empire of Brazil and the Oriental Republic will work for the swift and better success end we all seek as mere auxiliaries." Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you had actually read something about the war you would know the reason for Brazil be placed in the treaty as an "auxiliary". The first and most important reason was to give the legal appearance that the conflict was a mere civil war, and not a full international war, thus preventing Great Britain from finding an excuse to intervene. Even though, it is good to remember, that the Argentine Confederation had declared war on the Empire of Brazil. The second reason, as told by Honório Hermeto Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, the Brazilian plenipotentiary, was "como medida política em relação às suscetibilidades do nacionalismo castelhano" (as a political measure regarding susceptibilities of the Castilian [Argentine] nationalism [pride]). Source: Sousa, José Antônio Soares de. Honório Hermeto no Rio da Prata: missão especial de 1851/52. São Paulo: Editora Nacional, 1959, pp. 23-27 (chapter O Convênio de 21 de Novembro de 1851; The Agreement of 21 November 1851). The book is entirely devoted to the diplomatic side of the conflict. That's the greatest difference between you and I, Cambalachero. I actually have knowledge of the subject under discussion. I read about it, I studied it. I have sources. --Lecen (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Make it seem like a civil war and not an international war, to avoid British interference? It was an international war already, and not since Brazil joined the conflict but since Fructuoso Rivera, president of Uruguay, declared war to Argentina. Britain had already found an "excuse to intervene", did so, and signed the Arana-Southern treaty to end their conflict with Rosas. Britain accepted that the Argentine forces supporting the Uruguayan president Oribe would stay in Uruguay until the French troops retired. Besides, what did Brazil had to fear from a British intervention against Rosas, when they had requested it themselves, but Britain and France did it on their own, rejecting the Brazilian help? And if the Brazilians were concerned about the Argentine pride, why did they request a parade in their honour?

I have another theory. Or, more exactly, Isidoro Ruis Moreno (in "Campañas militares Argentinas", cited), member of the National Academy of History, has another theory: Brazil was second to Urquiza because Brazil had no other choice but to be second to Urquiza. If Urquiza did not turn against Rosas, Brazil had no chances. The numbers speak alone, but let's see some documents used by Moreno. A commnt of the government of Brazil to the British james Hudson, on May 1, 1851 (ignoring the events in Concepción del Uruguay): "Between the Imperial government of Brazil and the Governor of Buenos Aires there are no issues por which, at least from part of the Imperial Government, a war should began" (translated into English). Urquiza only called the Brazilian Rodrigo de Souza da Silva Pontes the following May 20, to request him that the Empire kept forces watching the Uruguay and Parana rivers: that was all the role he intended for them. He goes on for some pages, detailing the movements of Silva Pontes, which clearly detail that it was Urquiza who was leading the negotiations. He points as well that the Brazilian forces played no role in the victory against Oribe, and a very minor one in Caseros.

The very book cited by Lecen, the one by O'Donnell, accepts that point at the chapter "El milagro de la casa de Brandemburgo". Still, it follows the dea that Urquiza was "bought" by the Empire to change sides. According to "Historia Argentina" by Norberto Galasso, that theory has the flaw of the Great Man theory: it does not explain why would the people from Entre Ríos follow Urquiza in this "betrayal". If a single man, for whatever reason, changes sides and goes against the will of the people under his command, that people riots and refuses to follow the traitor leader; as it happened to Urquiza himself when he supported Mitre in the War of the Triple Alliance, which the people from Entre Ríos refused to fight and had to be taken chained to the battlefield. Cambalachero (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

Cambalachero said in another thread: "Which proves that, unlike Hitler, positive views of Rosas are not at all a tiny minority, and are even sponsored by the Argentine state." Is this true? Let's see. The American historian William Dusemberry, in his article to The Hispanic American Historical Review, dated 1961, wrote: "Rosas is a negative memory in Argentina. He left behind him the black legend of Argentine history-a legend which Argentines in general wish to forget. There is no monument to him in the entire nation; no park, plaza, or street bears his name."[16]

What happened since 1961, then? When Rosas became, in the words of Cambalachero, someone whom many have a "positive view" and who is "even sponsored by the Argentine state"? The answer lies in another book written in English, Lyman L. Johnson's Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America. Let's see:

"Rosas supportes worked relentlessly... to repatriate their hero. They were aided by the growth in the 1920s and 1930s of the revisionist school of historiography that worked to rehabilitate Rosas' regime... Revisionists naturally focused on Rosas's strong suit as defender of national sovereignty... Also in the 1930s, the Pro-Repatriation of Rosas Committee was established, and by the 1960s it had become quite active, even seeking the aid of exiled former president Juan D. Perón. An ardent admirer of Rosas, Juan Perón, along with his wife Evita, had governed Argentina from 1946 to 1955, when he was ousted by a military coup... Perón was, in many ways, similar to Juan Manuel [de Rosas]: a military background, a popular base of power, strong nationalist sentiments, a life of exile...; and denigrated memory in the official histories of the nation... When Perón returned to office again in 1973, after nearly twenty years of exile, he appointed ... ambassador to England and gave him two specific charges... repatriate the remains of Juan Manuel de Rosas... the new president, Dr. Carlos Saúl Menem, who took office in July 1989. Having served as the Peronist governor of the province of La Rioja, Menem... capitalized on the populist tradition of Peronism and effectively employed federalist symbols from the Rosas era... Menem wanted to redraw the Argentine genealogical family tree, to displace Mitre's gallery of celebrities with a more inclusive pantheon."

Thus, the revisionist Pro-Rosas became a pewerful force (if we could theme it in that way) in the 1930s wheh it became common in the Western world to support authoritarian regimes. It was a dictator like Perón who supported the revisionism. And it were Perón's followers (the Peronism) like Menem and the Kirshner's couple that continued his struggle to rehabilitate a dictator like Rosas.

A good representation of how far-reaching is the goal of Cambalachero to whitewash Rosas' biography can be seen in the article Blood tables (created by Cambalachero and written by him). It is about a 19th century books about Rosas' executions. Cambalachero says in the lead: "The book was used as a primary source by the early historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas; modern historians consider it biased, inaccurate and unreliable." The source used? Carlos Smith's Juan Manuel de Rosas ante la posteridad, a revisionist work.

Another fine example of how biased the articles relating to Rosas have become at Wikipedia is Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas.

What's happening in here is that Cambalachero is writing a series of articles through the view of a minority historical school with the purpose of following a political agenda. It's like someone else started working articles about Mussolini or about the Holocaust from the point of view of revisionists. And that's not how it's supposed to be. We could even add in a "Legacy" section something about the Revisionists, but not in the main body of text as it were a legitimate source. --Lecen (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Perón was revisionist himself, but did not promote revisionism from the government. In fact when he nationalized the railways, he named them... Urquiza, Sarmiento and Mitre. No, revisionism is not the artificial invention of some governor. It predates Perón (it began in the XIX century, in fact), and grew across governments of several different political lines. And better don't talk in Argentina about Menem and the Kirchners being the same thing, only antiperonists would fall into such simplification. In fact, the detail that the recognition to Rosas is shared by Menem and Kirchner, who hardly share anything else, is highly elocuent. Besides, Leopoldo Moreau of the UCR attends all the celebrations of the day of national sovereignthy. Is he, too, a "Perón follower"? Cambalachero (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The lack of sources in any of them reveal how much you're biased by your own point of view. --Lecen (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not at home right now, I'm a bit busy in the countdown to christmas, but there are books to back everything I said. You'll have them in some days. Cambalachero (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have limited time right now, I will expand my answer here a bit (as it is the main topic that influence the others), and leave the other topics for later, when I have more time in real life. First of all, let's remember that historiography and public perception are different things: one takes place among scholars, and the other among society at large.

Let's begin with historiography. Clear mistakes. First, it speaks of historical revisionism as an unified thing, with an homogeneous political perspective over current (for its time) politics, and artificially promoted from the government. Not at all. As detailed and referenced in Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas#Peronism, revisionist historians (identified by name) had different political orientations: peronists, antiperonists, nonaligned, etc. Despite his personal ideas, Perón never made political proclamations on historiographical issues during his rule, and even eluded the topic in circumstances that would call for them. In fact, he removed revisionists from authority roles they had achieved during the military government of 1943 that predated him. If Peron's administration ever referenced history, it was with an inclusive angle, honouring national heroes that are universally acclaimed in the country as San Martín (and I already mentioned the nationalization of railways, and the names they got), or with a focus "the past is past, let's head for the future" rather than "we continue the work of X man from a century ago". On the other hand, most antiperonisms were against Rosas, and used such historical criticisms to pass indirect criticisms to Perón. Source: "Historia de la Historiografía Argentina" (Spanish: History of the historiography of Argentina), by Fernando Devoto, pages 268-271. As it is very long to quote (it's 4 whole pages), I scanned them and uploaded somewhere else here and here. Fernando Devoto is a teacher of historiography at the es:Facultad de Filosofía y Letras (Universidad de Buenos Aires).

The divergence of political ideas within revisionists is not limited to the Peronist period. It may be possible to point to several specific historians and detail their backgrounds, a work began at Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas, but t is easier to point the words of Horacio González here: "The Rosist historical revisionism, in its variants (republican conservative, ultramontane Apostolic Catholic nationalist, popular nationalist and left-wing nationalist), and its more or less documentary or divulgative styles, is a widely public force in public awareness and in the media. From being the second voice, never weak, of historical interpretations, it has become the first". Horacio González, as already said, is the president of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, not an author from the lot. Modern historians do not even care about the dsputes about Rosas, and consider it a settled issue. Felix Luna: "It can be said that today all relevant documentation concerning Rosas and his time is already published. It is not likely the discovery of papers that may change the judgments made ​​by the various historiographical trends. It is even possible to say that the issue of Rosas has lost interest for most Argentine historians." (Luna, Félix (2003). La época de Rosas. Buenos Aires: Grupo Editorial Planeta. ISBN 950-49-1116-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)). Pablo Mendelevich: "Appeased as today is the traditional dispute around the figure of Rosas, heated historical debate and thoughts have shifted to 1910". Note that "historians" means the bulk of Argentine historians who work in a steady way in historical investigations in the country; there can always be one or two writers who defy the consensus or sticks to outdated misconceptions. Specially foreign authors, if for their works they simply read what another author said and did not take the work to locate the documentary evidence and confirm things by themselves (something that would require them to travel to another country).

As for the public perception, it did not change thanks to peronism. On the contrary, it changed thanks to antiperonism. As mentioned, most antiperonists embraced the rejection to Rosas as an indirect way to embellish their opposition to Perón, drawing a parallelism between antirosism and themselves. Thus the quote of Lonardi after deposing Perón, "neither victors nor vanquished", the same quote (and not a coincidence, but a deliverate repeat) used by Urquiza after deposing Rosas. Not only was Perón deposed, but the whole Peronism was proscripted. Unlike Perón, who avoided the historical disputes, the new military governments made an extensive use of it for propaganda: Perón was the dictator and they were the saviors of the nation, same as Rosas was the dictator in the XIX century and the unitarians were the saviors of the nation. But for the people, who still supported the exiled Perón, the military were not saviors, that was clear. But instead of rejection the whole "May-Caseros-Libertadora" propaganda, they embraced it and changed the terms: yes, Perón was a new Rosas, and Lonardi a new Urquiza, but reversing who of them was the hero and who was the villain. Historical revisionism, which so far was limited to scholar discussions, found this way an entry into the perception of the main public. This is the answer for Lecen's "what happened since 1961?" question. Historica revisionism began already in the XIX century, but the change in the social perception of Rosas took place a long time later, during the peronist proscription (and not promoted by a government, but against a government's wishes). And even yet, Perón did not embrace it immediately, but after some time: in 1956, he compared the coup against him with the "Mazorca". So the change was led by Peronism as a social movement, not by Perón himself. Devoto, p. 278-279, here.

That's it for now, as I said I'm a bit busy. We will continue this later... unless the Mayan prophecy of the end of the world happens to be real, and the four horsemen cross the sky singing "Highway to hell" Cambalachero (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'd be happy to help resolve this situation ... I'm coming here from the WP:3O page. Can both editors briefly restate (under this post) what the issue is (include sources & page numbers in the statement)? Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Neolander, thank you very much for having taken your time to dicuss this. The issue is quite simple: I believe that this article presents a whitewashed history of Juan Manuel de Rosas. He was a dictator, a brutal one, who ruled through terror and who had expansionist goals. This is not what I believe he was, that is what he called himself and that's how historians see him. Now let's see the main points:

1) What are the best sources about Rosas? The best source in English about the life of Juan Manuel de Rosas is John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. This is the second edition of his biography and it was published in 2001. The first edition is called Argentine Dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas and was published in 1981. It is regarded as the "definitive" biography of Rosas by Encyclopædia Britannica.[17] Hugh M. Hamill called it an "[a]lready classic biography of Argentina's most significant caudillo."[18] Daniel K. Lewis regarded it "[a]n outstanding work on the dictator and his historical significance".[19] Michael Goebel said that it is "a classic work about Rosas in English".[20]

2) Rosas regarded himself a dictator:The title he gave for himself was "Tirano ungido por Dios para salvar a la patria" ("Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland").[21][22] He said once: "I have always admired autocratic dictators who have been the first servants of their people. That is my great title: I have always sought to serve the contry". (Lynch, 2001, p.163) He regarded the dictatorship as best form of government: "For me the ideal of good government would be paternal autocracy, intelligent, desinterested and indefatigable..." (Lynch, 2001, p.75) A passage of Lynch's books is revealing: "In short, Rosas ws an absolute ruler. 'As he told himself', remarked the British minister Southern, 'he wields a power more absolute than any monarch on his throne.'" (Lynch, 2001, p.82)

3) State terrorism: Rosas ruled through terror. I know the word is strong but it's the one used by historians. See:

a) "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government to eliminate enemies..." (page 96) "Rosas was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree." (page 118) Source: Lynch, John. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. 2 ed. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2001 ISBN 0-8420-2897-8

b) "Juan Manuel de Rosas (sometimes spelt Rozas), the rich and well-bred landowner who became dictator of Buenos Aires and ruled with terror, lived..." Source: [23]

c) "Juan Manuel de Rosas pacified and centralized the country through a liberal use of terrorist methods." Source: [24]

d) "The blockade damaged the Buenos Aires economy and gave Rosas justification for a wave of terror against his domestic foes." Source: [25]

e) "[t]rhough his terrorist organization, the Mazorca, Rosas made himself master of the country." Source: page 27 of Saeger, James Schofield. Francisco Solano López and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Estover Road, Plymoth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. ISBN 0-7425-3754-4

f) "Rosas brutally repressed any opponents. His spies, the police, and the military led a reign of terror. He had housands tortured and killed and many people fled the country." Source: page 27 of Link, Theodore; Rose McCarthy. Argentina: A Primary Source Cultural Guide. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004. ISBN 0-8239-3997-9

g) "Juan Manuel de Rosas returns to the governorship of Buenos Aires, establishing a terrorist dictatorship..." Source: page 487 of Marley, David. Wars of the Americas: A Chronology of Armed Conflict in the New World, 1492 to the Present. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 1998. ISBN 0-87436-837-5

h) "Rosas was re-elected as Governor on 13 April, this time with dictatorial powers ... Rosas would reign supreme in Argentina thereafter until the Battle of Caseros in 1852 creating a secret police force named the Mazorca which punished disloyalty by means of state terrorism. Its most notorious acts were committed during the months of April and May 1842, when, if contemporary accounts are true, the streets of the capital were awash with blood..." Source: page 15 of Hooker, Terry D. (2008). The Paraguayan War. Nottingham: Foundry Books. ISBN 1-901543-15-3

i) "In Buenos Aires, Rosas demanded and received dictatorial powers (la suma de poder público). Any educated man who henceforth thought to dissent risked being daggered by agents of his political police, the Mazorca." Source: page 53 of Whigham, Thomas L. (2002). The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct. 1. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-4786-4

j) "...especially as the celebrated dictator of Buenos Aires, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1835-1852) was believed to be ambitious to restore..." Source: pages 72-73 of Haring, Clarence H. (1969). Empire in Brazil: a New World Experiment with Monarchy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. OCLC 310545470

k) "Juan Manuel de Rosas, dictator of Argentina since the 1830s as caudillo of Buenos Aires, its richest province and its major port..." Source: page 121 of Needell, Jeffrey D. (2006). The Party of Order: the Conservatives, the State, and Slavery in the Brazilian Monarchy, 1831–1871. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5369-2

l) "This group was headed by Rosas, who became dictator of Buenos Aires, and effectively of the whole country. for most of the period between 1829 and 1852. His was a brutal reign in which he asserted..." Source: page 16 of Leuchars, Chris (2002). To the bitter end: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-32365-8

m) "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..." and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance." Source: pages 47 and 57 of Lewis, Daniel K. The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 ISBN 1-4039-6254-5

n) "The period of Rosas' second governorship, which was to extend until 1852, was marked by increasing authoritarianism that has coloured his historical image... Rosas also created a more sinister force, known as the Mazorca... those accused of opposition were often tortured or had their throats cut." Source: pages 8 and 9 of Hedges, Jill. Argentina: A Modern History. New York: I.B.Tauris, 2011 ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7

o) "In Argentina, Juan Manuel de Rosas established his personalist dictatorship, with Dorrego dead and San Martín and Rivadavia in exile." Source: page 160 of Seckinger, Ron. The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republics, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1984 ISBN 0-8071-1156-2

There are other issues, but the question of Rosas being a brutal dictator is the main one. Cambalachero (the other user) removed from the article any mention (including sourced) that Rosas was a dictator. (See here) In fact, he wrote the article in a way that gives the impression that his political opponents were the one who called Rosas a dictator, but that historians, mainly 20th and 21th century ones do not. That's one big lie. Cambalachero is whitewashing other articles too, such as Juan Perón. There is no word that Perón was a dictator, nor that he was well known friend of Nazi nor of his antisemitism. But Perón's article is not the focus of the present discussion. I only wanted to use it as example to show how far Cambalachero has gone. Once you have time and patience, try to read the entire thread ("About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article"). You'll realize that Cambalachero avoided answering most of my comments and the ones he did answer, he didn't bring a single source to back his claims. --Lecen (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Of course, the WP:NPOV policy requires that articles present all viewpoints about the topic of the article, so negative material should certainly be included provided that it is supported by sources. I'll look into the sources later. The WP:UNDUE policy, on the other hand, requires that the negative material be presented in rough proportion to the weight the sources give it. I'll wait until Cambalachero provides his input before I make any more comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Please keep your comment concise, and supply sources (and page numbers) to support all your points. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Due to real-life obligations, my visits to WP will be sporadic for the next couple of weeks. If you post a note, I may not be able to reply for several days. That doesn't mean I've given up! Starting around January 2, 2013, I should be able to participate daily. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you may have missed the point: it's not a matter of adding two different points of view. But the correct one. We don't write "According to some historians, Hitler killed 6 million jews, but according to others, he didnt." Revisionism is not accepted in here as a second opinion. --Lecen (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what sources Cambalachero provides. --Noleander (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As requested, I will make this short and to the point. Lecen wants the article to say "Rosas was a dictator...", as a statement in wikipedia's voice. But "dictator" is a word that labels, and shall only be used when the usage is universal. Is Rosas universally considered a dictator? No, he is not, and I have provided the required references (books, scanned pages, some info about the authors) about the old controversy at the "Legacy" thread. If the opinion is not universal, the aticle must detail who thinks one thing, who thinks the other, and the current state of the dispute. Remember as well that books authors do not have the policy of avoiding words that label, so the existence of authors that use it does not mean we should. You can make a comparison with Oliver Cromwell, a similar example closer to English-speaking audiences: a man who was depised as a dictator, but honoured by others. The article (which, as far as I remember, I have never touched) mentions who considers him a dictator, but avoids the label "Oliver Cromwell was a dictator...". The same approach should be used here. Cambalachero (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero: thanks for your reply. I read through the Legacy section above; and I also read the Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Could you do me a favor: I've been unable to find - in that reading - any quotes from (modern) sources which say "Rosas was not a dictator" or "Historian X says Rosas was a dictator, but that historian is wrong". Could you supply some quotes from sources that say things similar to that? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's something I'd like to see, since Rosas styled himself "Tyrant anointed by God to save the Fatherland" and was an outspoken advocate of authoritarian regimes. He regarded himself a dictator but there are historians who regard him a democratic president? I really want to see that. --Lecen (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm compiling some sources, it may take a day or two. But for the moment, I'll advance that the answer to Lecen's previous question is a "yes". Cambalachero (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Most historians actually use the term Caudillo for Rosas. A caudillo is not the same thing as a dictator.

In fact, the term caudillismo is used to refer to a political period of Latin American history.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The particular issue we are addressing here is to what extent this article should state that Rosas is a dictator; if so: in the encyclopedia's voice? or use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Should the term "dictator" be qualified when used? We've got a good set of sources listed above, we are now waiting for balancing sources. Caudillo, if the sources use it a lot for Rosas, may be a good term to include in the article, but even if it were used, the "dictator" issue would still remain because the article would have to define the term Caudillo using plainer English words (because very few readers would know what Caudillo means) - thus we will need to determine if "dictator" should be used in the definition of Caudillo as applied to Rosas. --Noleander (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Caudillo does have a complicated meaning to it, but that's a result of it being primarily a Latin American political phenomenom.

The positive and negative definitions both agree that caudillos are identified as charismatic strongmen with a strong personal following (a personality cult). Rosas fits this description, and this is what should be undisputed.

The question of whether Rosas was democratic or authoritarian is subject to personal POV, and therefore should follow the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

The definition of caudillo actually leaves this question "open" on purpose, because caudillos are guilty of being both democratic and authoritarian. Some can be highly democratic, to the point of being elected through democratic popular support (such as Juan Peron). Rosas, as caudillo of the Argentine Confederation, was actually quite democratic relative to the Unitarians (who wanted to centralize power in Buenos Aires). Yet, both Rosas and Peron are also known for being quite ruthless, given the opportunity.

However, to exclusively label either of them as "democratic" or "dictator" (in the modern sense of it being solely authoritarian), would be going against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Such claims must be attributed to the people who claim it.

Hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment: "The question of whether Rosas was democratic or authoritarian is subject to personal POV, and therefore should follow the policy of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" ... that is not accurate. If the majority of mainstream, secondary sources hold a particular view, then that view can be stated in the encyclopedia's voice and need not be attributed. For example: evolution vs. creationism - those are two POVs, but the majority of scientists support evolution, therefore WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply and "evolution is true" can be (and is) stated in the encyclopedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV only applies when the sources are biased or the POV is held by sources that are in the minority. --Noleander (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The support to Rosas generally comes from the "security" side of the "security vs. liberty" dichotomy that all countries in the world had to face at some point or another in their histories. Or, to use less loaded words, the "pragmatism vs. adherence to principles" dichotomy. Relaxed in the comfort of our houses, when the crises are over (or contained in history books) or they are someone else's problem, we are all the champions of principles, but in time of crisis, it is the pragmatists who cope with them and provide solutions. Other historians point that Rosas made no coup, and that the release of public power was completely legal when it was made.

So, let's see some pragmatics. We can begin with a contemporary of Rosas, José de San Martín. "Men do not live from dreams but from facts. What I care if it is repeated over and over again that I live in a country of liberty, if on the contrary, I'm being oppressesed? Freedom!, Give it to a child of two years for enjoying by way of fun with a box of razor blades and you tell me the results. Freedom! So that if I devote myself to any kind of industry, comes a revolution that destroy the work of many years and the hope of leaving a loaf of bread for my children. Freedom! In order to charge me for contributions to pay the huge costs incurred, for four ambitious because they feel like, by way of speculation, making a revolution and go unpunished. Freedom! For the bad faith to found complete impunity as proved by the generality of bankruptcies ... this freedom, nor is the son of my mother going to enjoy the benefits it provides, until you see established a government that demagogues called tyrant, and protect me against the properties that freedom gives me today. Maybe you may tell that this letter is written in a good soldierly humor. You will be right, but you agree that at age 53 one can not admit that good faith will want to take for a ride ... Let this matter conclude and let me end by saying that the man who set the order of our country, whatever the means that for it employees, is the only one that would deserve the noble title of Liberator". Note, of course, that those described in the first paragraphs are the unitarians. When Rosas was appointed governor in 1835, with the sum of public power, San Martín wrote to Tomás Guido. "Twenty five years searching for a liberty which not only has not existed, but in this long period the oppresion, the personal insecurity, destruction of wealths, wantonness, venality, corruption and civil war have been the fruit that the Fatherland has got after so many sacrifices. It was about time to put an end to evils of such dimension, and to achieve such laudable purpose I see as good and legal any government that establishes order in a solid and stable manner, and I do not doubt that you and all men who love their country will think as I do".

As Lecen wants to read about Rosas considered a “democratic president”, let’s begin to list historians with Manuel Gálvez wrote “Vida de Juan Manuel de Rosas”, ISBN 978-950-620-208-8 (note that Rosas was not a president). Talking about his popularity when he began his first term, Gálvez wrote "Juan Manuel de Rosas represents the primary love to the Fatherland, the adherence to our own land, the Americanism against the Europeist fervor of the unitarians. He also represents, against the aristocratic tendencies of his enemies, the democracy. This is the truth, like it or not. Juan Manuel de Rosas, in those days, represents the democracy of the gauchos and the pampas, and the democracy of the populace of Buenos Aires". (pg. 123) He details how Rosas rejected several honours that the Legislature tried to give him. "Has Rosas despised those supporters? His haughtiness of gaucho, his moral health of man of the contryside, surely dislike the flattery and the fear of his friends. But he does not pretend to be a dictator. He requested and accepted the extraordinary faculties because it was impossible to govern back then without them. He requested them more for precaution than anything else. He barely makes use of them, and we shall see how he returns them". As of 1835, he writes “He couldn’t have been such a tyrant when everybody, freely, request his return to power! Rosas has not seized the government. He has been sought, he has been invited. Rich and poor, everybody believes that only him, with his strong arm, can rule. Everybody knows that only he can impose order, destroy the anarchy and reorganize the nation. Everybody knows hat only he has the patriotism and the will of self-sacrifice to futfill the tragic mission announced by the prophetic words of José de San Martín". And, as Lecen has played the “Nazi card” several times, let’s hear the opinion of an actual contemporary of World War II: "Does the Rosist regime have any similarity with fascism or nazism? Can it be considered a pecursor of those systems? No. Rosas keeps the democratic customs and respects the legislature. He does not renege from liberty, neither his supporters; and if he has limited it is because he rules in an abnormal time. In the vast mailing of Rosas and his public documents there is not a single word against freedom; he considers the unitarians enemies of it, those who in fact cancelled it in 1828. He keeps all the power in his hands, but everywhere during stormy times power is simplified." And more. "Many people imagine that Rosas, “dictator” and even “tyrant”, could not have been democrat. They consider that without freedom there is no democracy. It’s a mistake. Democracy is “government of the people”, with or without freedom, which does not define it. And there is no doubt that Rosas rules for the people and represent them. Nowadays we do not conceive democracy but linked to liberalism, but it hasn’t been always that way. Besides, we must not confuse purely political democracy with social democracy."

Julio Irazusta wrote “Vida política de Juan Manuel de Rosas a través de su correspondencia”. In Volume II, about he sum of public power, he says: "In the fourth decade of the XIX century, the sum of public power and its use was not an anacronism. The political conflict between the agents of the former social regime and those of the revolution that sought to renew or destroy it had all Europe under siege, as Rosas had pointed in his mail to Quiroga; and took place in a context of unbridled violence, whose details return the Argentine drama to its real character of an episode of a tragic worldwide crisis. Revolutionaries wanted to sap the foundations of traditional order of society: religion, class inequalities, political and economic priviledges, juridic incapabilities of religious dissidents and foreigners, the severity of the penal system, etc. And the defenders of the established order, to keep them, to mount the restoration on them, or to combine them with the most rational demands of the innovators. The process did not follow the same patterns everywhere, as circumstances of time and place changed dramatically from one country to the other. But the fight was always inflamed. And the most characteristic difference in the degree of that inflamation across regions is highly illustrative of the Argentine case: in the places where the national state does not exist, or its existence was compromised, or it was in formation, the fight was more violent than in those who were already organized."

Arturo Jauretche wrote “Don Juan Manuel y el revisionismo tímido”. In relation to the letter of the hacienda of Figueroa, he wrote: "Let’s accept that it is the mail of a rancher, but the political platform detailed there is not the platform of a rancher: it is the platform of a national politician who did not cease being a rancher but who does not subject the politics to the ranch. Quite the contrary. For his taste, he would be unitarian and supporter of an aristocratic society, but his county, his Fatherland, does not accept that; that’s no solution for her, and as he sees that the solution is federal and democratic, that’s the solution he chooses".

Jaime Gálvez, talking about the sum of public power "On first sight it would seem, from a theoretical point of view, the establishment of an absolute monarchy, as according to Jean Bodin sovereignthy can be located in the people (democracy), in a minority (aristocracy) or a single man (monarchy). But this first impression dissapears when we consider the time limit, the five-years long term, the legislature, and other details of the republican form of government that stayed. Let’s discard, then, monarchy. Would it be a tyranny? But let’s discuss first what is a tyranny. The ones who studied this topic the most are the classic greeks (note: I skip a long paragraph about greeks, pointless here). The Greek authors find 3 main characteristics of tyranny: foreign help to take government, oppresing tributes towards the people and their properties, and finally, personal wealth and profit as the ultimate motivation. None of those characteristics existed in the March 7 law, voted directly by the people and ratified by their representatives, nor appeared later during the rule of the federal governor".

Luis Soler Cañas: "For me, Rosas was an incarnation of democracy, because he led a government for the people, a truly popular government. Rosas was plebiscited, do not forget that, and all the extraordinary powers released on him – indispensable to rule the country during a period particularly difficult and harsh – were given by the legislature of Buenos Aires. Never did Rosas took any power that was not given or delegated by the people or their representatives. This in regard of the legal side, t must be considered as well that Rosas, as all the great national caudillos, was a real manifestation of the popular will, an active representation of the soul and energy of the people, the one were people delegated all their powers, beyond the complications of complex legal systems."

There are many more examples, but I think those will do for the moment. Cambalachero (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero: Thanks for providing those sources and quotes. That really helps define the issue. Looking at these sources, and comparing them with the "is a dictator" sources above, it appears that the "is a dictator" sources are more compelling. The sources presented in the "not a dictator" list are not very impressive: I don't see a major, modern, respected biographer anywhere in the list.

• José de San Martín is not a detached historian
• Arturo Jauretche is a politician himself.
• Manuel Gálvez seems legitimate, but more information is needed to assess his value: When did he write his biography? Why is the biography not yet used in the article? What are his credentials?
• Julio Irazusta may be a good source: but I do not see in his quote above where he writes "Rosas was not a dictator" (or anything similar).
• Other sources cannot be assessed without more information: who are Jaime Gálvez and Luis Soler Cañas?

Without a description of their credentials, it is impossible to assess their opinions. Based on the sources presented, it seems clear that the encylopedia's voice can be used to describe Rosas as a "dictator" without attribution. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV requires the sources to be identified only when the viewpoint is from biased sources, or if the viewpoint is a minority. For purposes of balance, however, the "is a dictator" statement can be followed by something like "Some historians such as Galvez suggest that Rosas did not abuse his powers, but merely accepted them because they were the only practical way to govern ...". If there is a genuine dichotomy of views (that is, if historians fall generally into two camps) that can be stated as well ("There are two views ..") but it should be made clear that the "is a dictator" is the mainstream view. The large number of reputable sources that plainly use the word "dictator" cannot be ignored simply because some historians disagree. WP:NPOV policy requires that the encyclopedia represent the viewpoint of the historians roughly in proportion to the number of neutral historians that hold the view. The "is a dictator" view is plainly the mainstream view, and the encyclopedia must represent it as such. --Noleander (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Cambalachero: You suggest that you have more sources. But it is not the quantity of sources that counts, it is the quality. If you have additional sources that provide additional support for "was not a dictator" viewpoint, I suggest that you limit it to sources that have the following attributes:

1) Written by a modern historian (after 1960 or so)

2) Author's primary expertise is Latin American history

3) Published by a reputable publisher, preferably a University press

4) Written by an unbiased, neutral scholar

The sources provided above in the "is a dictator" list include books from Stanford Univ press, Harvard, etc. These are the sorts of sources that are needed. Spanish-language sources, of course, are fine, but they must meet that same level of professionalism and detachment to outweigh the "is a dictator" sources. --Noleander (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What would you want, exactly? Something like the president of the National Library acknowledging a paradign shift, accepting that the former revisionism is currently incorporated into the standard academic works, that the dichotomy “academic history vs. revisionism” is already settled? I have done that already, at the “Legacy” thread, right above this one. Horacio González is the president of the National Library. Fernando Devoto is a teacher of historiography at the University of Philosophy and words. Félix Luna is also a university teacher, Secretary of Culture of Buenos Aires, and received the Konex Award.

Let's check now the book "Imposturas Históricas e identidad nacional" by Marcelo Lascano. Lascano is a teacher at the University of Buenos Aires, director of the publisher Eudeba, member of the CONICET, and lecturer at the University of Kansas, the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh (United States), University of Guadalajara (Mexico), Madrid, Toledo and Palencia (Spain) and the Getúlio Vargas Foundation in Brazil.

In relation to revisionism, he wrote “’’Revisionism exists because several aspects of the Argentine history were concealed or archly interpreted, not with a will of divulguing the past according to rationales of faithfulness with the events and their straight interpretation, but for subaltern purposes’’”. “The grievances and discrimation suffered by revisionism are incompatible with the scientific spirit. The reason is really simple. History does not need to lack flexibility. Their investigations, feats and conclusions must be always open to the possibilities offered by new elements of judgement, capable to confirm or rectify their discoveries according to the advances of other auxiliar sciences’’” In reference to foreign author as those cited here, he does not say they are biased: he says that their works are innacurate because of being based on outdated Argentine works. He cites a work from the university of Yale and says “’’This perspective, definitely partial and mistaken, is pathetic, as we shall see. An intellectual unsuspectd of bias falls victim of the official version of history. To silence or stain Rosas, traditional historiography has made so deep effords to ratify a biased interpretation of the Argentine past that it managed to misdirect the judgement of a major researcher. Otherwise, Díaz Alejandro could not have omited the decisive influence of the international wars in the national economy of the time, or recognized and undeniable productive feats. Ommisions and underestimations of this kind are present in a huge bibliography’’”. The author is not revisionist, he specifically denied being so, and remember again the credentials I mentioned first. If most bibliography in English is outdated, we should not priviledge it merely because it’s in English, we try to avoid systemic bias. Note, for instance, the huge similarities between the texts of Lynch and Bethell that Lecen pointed himself at your talk page (I pointed a similar thing about another text of Lynch in this talk page). He finds that “amazing”, I find that rather unprofessional. A historian’s work builds upon previous historian’s works, but not this way: he must check what others said, and then check the sources of this other historian, and the sources of the previous one, all the way to the primary sources. And if the path can not be completed, then it must be explicitly noted that way: if X historian said something based on Y document, and the Y document is now destroyed or lost, then the historian who reads X must make this scenario transparent to the reader and peers. It is not acceptable to simply copy and paste texts of others, taking them as ultimately correct and without checking for himself. Lynch may not be biased himself, but if he simply repeats what someone else said, he would unintentionally carry on the bias or mistakes of the original writer. That’s the main diference between a historian and a divulgator of history. Those are the ommisions and underestimations that Lascano talks about.

As for Félix Luna, let’s expand the quote. “’’Facing the antirosist thesis of academics and the rosist revisionist antithesis, inevitably it had to emerge the synthesis that acknowledges the positive of both ones. I believe that this synthesis has come. Now we begin to see Rosas as a regular character of our past: not as the unspeakable monster of Vicente Fidel Lopez, nor as the unique hero of the Irazusta, but as a ruler who lived hard times, bordered grave dangers with skill and imagination and left some positive things for the country, without prejudice to a black anecdotes also held in the balance. It is very difficult to make an overall judgment of the Restorer. To formulate it, means to fall into unfair generalizations, and worse, judge a man of the past through modern standards. Can we consider the respect held for human life in those tremendous decades, according to our modern sensitivity? Is it possible to understand the danger of national disintegration or severe impairment of our independence, when such dangers seem unthinkable today? Until recently, to judge Rosas kindly meant, for vast and powerful sectors, to exert a shameful complicity with all forms of despotism, it implied approval of political authoritarianism, impairing the freedom, disregard for life and man’s dignity. On the other side and simultaneously, to severely prosecute Rosas automatically turned those who did it in traitors and posthumous partners of those Argentines who allied with foreigners in their antirosist fervor. Of course, that is not a way to make history’’”. (book “Con Rosas o contra Rosas”, 2010)

Luis Alberto Romero, leader historian of the CONICET, the University San Martín and the UBA, wrote this. “’’Historical revisionism, a historiographical movement that defied that perspective, added original causes – a romantic idea of the people, a hostile perspective of Britain, reinvidicaton of Rosas and caudillos – but ultimately it was built over similar premises, and when it was traducted for the schools it was as a moderate and pacific version, complementary rather than alternative of the dominant one’’”.

In short: all academic authorities of Argentine history, the place that makes the deepest and most detailed works about the history of Argentina, agree that revisionism had made good points and that it was incorporated into the standard view of Argentine history. On the other side, we have a foreign author saying that revisionism is a “hindrance”. Should we take him into account, over the Argentine authorities? Well, if an Argentine author defied the American consensus about people as Lincoln or Robert Lee, I would favor the local sources as well.

As for the use or no use of the word “dictator”, have in mind that there are two issues to take into account. Is the word being explicitly used as a form of repudiation, or merely as a common word, easily replaceable by others? For the first case, I think it is sufficiently proved that that’s not the standard in Argentine historiography. For the second case, Wikipedia has its own style rules, and chooses to avoid using words that label. Other books may not follow the same style rule, so a mere blind search for the term “dictator” in works about Rosas is misleading. To say “Rosas was a dictator” in Wikipedia’s voice, it should be an universally held perspective. More than mere ocurrences of “Rosas was a dictator” or “Rosas’ dictatorship” within author texts, we should seek authors pointing which is the consensus towards Rosas, rather than coming to that conclusion ourselves (which would be a form of original research). More than authors talking about Rosas himself, we should focus on authors talking about the historiography of Rosas (a topic in itself) to come to a conclusion over that issue. Did Lecen provide a source that says that Rosas is universally despised? No. Did I provide a source that says that Rosas is not despised? Yes, several.

By the way, Lecen, keep the discussion here, don't go to the other user's talk pages to try to convince them personally by showing your own version of things. I would have to do the same as well, so that Noleander has the full picture... and basically duplicate the discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

John Lynch wrote the first chapter of Leslie Bethell's Argentina Since Independence. That's why that book and Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentine Caudillo have both almost the same text. Anyone with the slightest knowledge in Latin American historiography would know that Bethell acts as the supervisor in his works, which are written by the most respected historians in each field. In other words: Bethell, probably the most respected English speaking Latin Americanist, backed Lynch's view of Argentina's early history. --Lecen (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with the slightest knowledge in Latin American history would know that discussions about Rosas' character, including whether he is a dictator or not, is debated and subject to personal POV.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the point. In any case, avoiding to label Rosas as a dictator does not equal being against that point of view, it merely means that Wikipedia does not engage in that dispute, as neither modern Argentine historians do, as pointed in my previous post. As for Lynch and Bethell, I don't feel the urgency of checking their works: none of the books I have seen detailing the historiography of Rosas even considered them worth of a single mention. Lynch himself seems to confirm it in the preface of his book: "In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britain supported him, fought him, traded with him and finally rescued him". Which means that he's the most respected historian in a field (English-speaking historiography of Rosas) where nobody else make any serious study. Sounds like very little, then. If there is a disagreement between him and the historiography that does study Rosas in full detail, it's clear that we should dismiss him and favor the more detailed works. Besides, his book was originally named "Argentine dictator: Juan Manuel de Rosas", and in modern editions it was renamed as "Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas". Sounds as if even Lynch agrees that the term is contentious. Cambalachero (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for an RfC? - I think I've done all I can from a 3O role. The next step is probably an WP:RFC, which would get more editors involved. The RfC question could be "Should the article (in the encyclopedia's voice) describe Rosas as a 'dictator'?". My personal opinion, from the sources listed above, is that the majority of sources do use that term in a descriptive sense, and that the sources that rebut the term are in the minority; so the term can be used in the encyclopedia's voice. Every time a source has been requested to rebut the term "dictator", all I've seen (so far) is non-reliable sources, or vague hand-waving, or TLDR essays on revisionism. If anyone needs help formatting an RfC, I can provide assistance. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Another approach here, rather than doing an RfC, is to insert a paragraph (or section) into the article discussing whether or not Rosas was a dictator. Right now, the article is mostly silent on the issue. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV can be used, and historians from both POVs can be identified to support both "he was a dictator" and "he was not". That should be done in the short term until the "in encyclopedias voice" issue is figured out. --Noleander (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time, Noleander. I appreciate your sincere effort to help. --Lecen (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That was certainly rude, Noleander. You requested sources from the highest academics rejecting the rejection to Rosas, I bringed exactly that (typing them myself, as I have them in printed books), and you reply that you didn't even read them. What else where you expecting? A counter-list of random and descontextualized minor quotes from semi-related books, as the one made by Lecen, pointing authors that make passing-by mentions of Rosas without using word "dictator"? I can easily do that as well. Cambalachero (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What confuses me is exactly what Lecen wants for this article to include. To be exact, Rosas was a dictator of what?

Juan Manuel de Rosas was governor of the Buenos Aires province. That was his legal title. Does he want it changed to "dictator of Buenos Aires"?

Juan Manuel de Rosas was Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation, again his legal title. Does he want it changed to "dictator of the Argentine Confederation"?

If Lecen gets away with his "most historians consider Rosas to be a dictator", where exactly does he plan to include that into the article? At most, it would be an instance within a much wider discussion of Rosas' character during his second government.

Please clarify, Lecen.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lecen's list

Let's make a deeper consideration of the google hits compiled by Lecen

• A) "contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree". Only certain contemporaries. Many others (mainly San Martín) supported Rosas. Vocal critics and enemies of Rosas, such as Sarmiento, Alberdi and Urquiza, changed their minds some time later. And historians... which historians? English-speaking historians, that Lynch himself says that they have forgoten Rosas completely? Argentine historians, in defiance of the Argentine historians themselves as cited?
• B) Passing-by comment in a book that talks about houses of Buenos Aires
• C) "Concise Encyclopeida Of World History". Rosas is mentioned in a passing-by manner in a work with a much larger scope. The author has no expertise on the particular topic... which can be easily pointed in that Justo José de Urquiza was incorrectly named "Juan José de Urquiza".
• D) The sentence is from a passing-by entry in a mere timeline
• E) The book is not about Rosas but about the War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay, more than a decade after Rosas left Argentina.
• F) That seems like a tourist brochure. The WHOLE history of Argentina is narrated in just 10 pages (including several images, so the actual text is even smaller than that).
• G) Again, a book with an overly too general topic (the military history of all of latin america, from Spanish colonization to modern day). 600 pages for all, and only 13 for the period of Rosas. I can't check the content because the google book preview is not available, but seems too little in comparison with books that have a 600 pages size on the specific topic of Rosas
• H) Another book about the War of the Triple Alliance. Wrong country, wrong time period.
• I) Same than H)
• J) Passing-by comment in a book about the Empire of Brazil. Again, wrong country.
• K) Same than J)
• L) Same than H)
• M) No elaboration on the topic, trivial use of the word.
• N) Does not use the magic word, does it?
• O) I can't see further context: the book does not allow previews in Google books, and a search in google for the quote given does not reveal anything. Still, it seems misleading: for the layman it reads as if Rosas was responsible of the death of Dorrego and the exiles of San Martín and Rivadavia, which are none the case.

In short: the only work specifically about Rosas mentioned by Lecen is Lynch's work. Lynch says himself in the preface "In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten", and so far it seems he is right. Everything else in the list are passing-by comments in works of much larger or different scopes, none of them devoted specifically to the study of Rosas. It seems hard and even pointless to seek a consensus between English-speaking historians about Rosas, when there is a single one working specifically on him. It may seem like a highly preferable option to work with another body of historians, who do work in a steady manner on this topic, even if that means dealing with the language barrier, and favor their consensus.

Note as well that only I), J) and K) are publishes by a University Press. It can be easy for the layman to see a list like this, see a pair of "University Press" things, and misunderstand that all the books have such publication. Cambalachero (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a look at sources that focus in the history of Argentina, then (by order that they were published).

• "Buenos Aires hastened to renominate Rosas as governor. He requested and received renewed dictatorial authority, investing him with the 'plenitude of the public power' (suma del poder público)"; "Throughout the Rosas years... the government made liberal use of terror and assassination. Scores of its opponents perished by throat-cutting at the hands of the mazorca." Source: page 106 of Rock, David. Argentina, 1516-1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987 ISBN 0-520-06178-0
• "...Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator who dominated Argentine politics from 1829 to 1852."; "More sinister was Rosas' increasing use of terror and violence to impose his will." Source: pages 113 and 120 of Shumay, Nicolas. The Invention of Argentina. Los Angeles: University of Californa Press, 1993 ISBN 0-520-08284-2
• "It was no ordinary election, for the new governor was given dictatorial powers..."; "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government, to eliminate enemies, to discipline dissidents..." Source: pages 20 and 29 of Bethell, Leslie. Argentina since independence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 ISBN 0-521-43376-2
• "Rosas used terror as an instrument of government to eliminate enemies..." (page 96) "Rosas was responsible for the terror: contemporaries affirmed it, and historians agree." (page 118) Source: Lynch, John. Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas. 2 ed. Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books, 2001 ISBN 0-8420-2897-8
• "During Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictatorship, political allies..." and "The dictatorship survived the second blockade as it had the first. Within Buenos Aires province, political terror and propaganda checked all signs of resistance." Source: pages 47 and 57 of Lewis, Daniel K. The History of Argentina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003 ISBN 1-4039-6254-5
• "The first, written by Rosas himself, shows an angry dictator using force and terror to impose his authority."; "Politicaly, the nineteenth century was the age of the caudillo, a term best translated as 'Latin American dictator'." Source: pages 72 and 73 of Clayton, Lawrence A.; Michael L. Conniff. A History of Modern Latin America. 2nd Ed. Belmont, California: Thomson Learning Academic Resource Center, 2005 ISBN 0-534-62158-9
• "Rosas was elected governor of the province of Buenos Aires in 1829, putting in place an authoritarian regime (and repressing political opponents) ... Rosas used the opportunity to build a powerful dictatorial regime. Backed by the army and hos own police force (the mazorca), Rosas managed to hold power until 1852." Source: page 28 of Edwards, Todd L. Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2008 ISBN 978-1-85109-986-3

There you go. The main books sold by U.S. Amazon about Argentine history. They all agree that Rosas was a dictator and that he used terrorism to rule. --Lecen (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas: slave owner

The lead says: "Although slavery was not abolished during his rule, Rosas sponsored liberal policies allowing them greater liberties, which angered the neighboring Empire of Brazil." The truth:

• "Rosas was a slave owner." (p.53)
• "Rosas bought slaves for himself and the Anchorenas. In the period 1816-1822, he acquired three slaves in Santa Fe; the Anchorenas bought three also. In 1822-1823, Rosas bought fifiteen slaves for Anchorena estancias, and in 1828, he made further purchases. On the estancias Los Cerrillos and San Martín alone he had thirty-four slaves." (pp.53-54)

Note: The Anchorena family was partner of Rosas. They bough several farms (called "estancias" in Spanish) together.

• "He was severe in his treatment of slaves, and he favored the lash to keep them obedient and preserve social order." (p.54)
• "Yet in the final analysis the demagogy of Rosas among the blacks and mulattoes did nothing to alter their position in the society around them." (p.56)

Source: Lynch, John (2001). Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas (2 ed.). Wilmington, Delaware: SR Books. ISBN 0-8420-2897-8

Just another fine example of how biased and badly written this article has become. --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. Rosas was not governor at the time period you mention, just a rancher like all the others. I have added a mention of this to the "Early life" section. Cambalachero (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute: opinions of third parties

Here is the place for neutral third parties to make their own comments. --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Have been reading through this. Just to check on my understanding: the quotes from Manuel Gálvez and Julio Irazusta above; are these the same as Manuel Gálvez and Julio Irazusta? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Use of Nationalist/Revisionist sources on Juan Manuel de Rosas

There is an ongoing dispute on this article in relation to its content, neutrality and use of sources. Several attempts have been tried (Third opinion, dispute resolution noticeboard and mediation), all in vain. The main issues that need to be resolved are:

1. Are Argentine Nationalist/Revisionist works legitimate to be used when writing this article?
2. How, and where, should the article Juan Manuel de Rosas mention the different views of Rosas?

The two clashing point of views that are the cause of this present dispute can be seen below:

• Lecen's point of view opposing the inclusion of Argentine revisionist sources can be seen here.
• Cambalachero's and MarshalN20's point of view supporting the inclusion of Argentine revisionist sources can be seen spread above (see Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#About the lack of neutrality, the biased view and arbitrary choice of facts added into this article).

Please, read carefully what has been said by both parties before sharing your opinion. --Lecen (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The "all in vain" claim made by Lecen is an exaggeration. I ask the RfC commentators to please also review the opinions of other users regarding this discussion:

• Go Phightins (Mediator, [26]): "I advocated your position [MarshalN20] and refuted his [Lecen], for the most part, in the DRN."
• Amadscientist (commentator, [27]): "[M]y intitial concern is balance by Lecen. The editor seems to have more than a less than disinterested POV on the subject and it does certainly show in the editors remarks, posts and requests. The first source I found is also the first source prsented in the Third Opinion and appears terribly cherry picked."
• Binksternet (commentator, [28]): "Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to name those who say Rosas was a dictator, and to name those who say he was something else. I don't think it is fruitful to demand that historians be found who say directly 'Rosas was not a dictator'."
• Wdford (commentator, [29]): "It seems to me just from this thread that a number of sources do not regard Rosas as a dictator. On that basis alone, I feel we should have a statement that "some see him as a dictator and others as something else". [...] I would recommend that we therefore mention that both opinions exist re Rosas, and hopefully the article contains enough background as to let the reader understand both perspectives in his original historical context."

You can review the full context of these messages through the links provided by Lecen and myself. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Revisionist narratives that go against overwhelming historical consensus are by definition WP:FRINGE, and it is almost always a case of assigning undue weight to such viewpoints by reflecting them in the text of articles. Such revisionist sources are fine for articles that cover a notable revisionist movement itself and its aims/scope, but not as views to be reflected in or as citations for mainstream articles. If a revisionist viewpoint has garnered widespread support (and the view that Rosas was not a dictator clearly has not), then it may be worthy of an explanatory footnote. Despite what some have suggested, reducing an article to an unreadable series of "Faction A says" vs. "Faction B says" statements is neither required, nor desirable, unless the split between scholars has large backing on either side (again, that is not the case here). There is an unending stream of this type of provocative, populist, but ultimately insupportable, publication. Revisionism usually ends on the junk-pile of apologetics rather quickly along with theories that extraterrestrials built the pyramids, that Jews started WWII, ideological or hatchet-job bios, wild claims by authors (even scholars) trying to make a name or a few extra dollars, etc. These should not form the bases for what articles say: including such material is a certain way to reduce Wikipedia to an irrelevant and unreliable encyclopedial resource. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a whitewashed view of Rosas as a benign, even heroic, figure is completely out of step with the English language scholarship, other encyclopedia articles, contemporary accounts (including Rosas' own statements), etc. The situation here is identical with similar efforts to introduce fringe views into other articles, and the solution is the same as well. Just because one can find historians who paint Stalin as just a misunderstood nice guy doesn't mean that sort of view deserves any place in Wikipedia articles. • Astynax ^talk 08:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to your comment, but I will not (to avoid conflicts with Lecen). Instead, let's listen to an expert:

• Horacio Gonzales (President, National Library of the Argentine Republic): "The Rosist historical revisionism, in its variants republican conservative, ultramontana apostolic, nationalist catholic, nationalist populist and nationalist left-wing, [...] is a movement widely present in public conscience and in the communications media. From being the second voice, never weak, of historiographical interpretations, it has already become the primary voice." (Spanish: "El revisionismo histórico rosista, en sus variantes republicana conservadora, ultramontana apostólica, nacionalista católica, nacionalista popular y nacionalista de izquierda, y en sus estilos más o menos documentalistas o legendarios, plebeyos o aristocráticos, es un movimiento publicístico ampliamente vigente en la conciencia pública y en los medios de comunicación. De ser la segunda voz, nunca endeble, de las interpretaciones historiográficas, ha pasado a ser ya la primera.")

The full text (in Spanish) can be accessed through this link ([30]; November 23, 2010). The source demonstrates that WP:FRINGE does not apply here. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Revisionist views are based in populist and/or political, not scholarly, phenomena. We don't jump on the bandwagon just because something captures the popular imagination and we do not write articles in a way that portrays such views as established fact. Were revisionism allowed to pollute articles, we would have to allow that the CIA may have killed JFK, that the Apollo Moon landings never took place outside a film studio, that extraterrestrials constructed the Nazca Line figures, or any of thousands of other baseless-though-popular travesties. This type of populist "second voice" is exactly the sort of thing WP:FRINGE is meant to prevent. If the sanitized view of Rosas is now being taught as fact in Argentina, then that would make a valuable footnote (especially if the nationalist, political motivation is made clear as in Gonzales' statement), but no mainstream article should be written in a way to lend credence to such views or to in any way imply that they are historical fact. • Astynax ^talk 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm basically with Astynax on this one. It should absolutely be footnoted, and the context of that footnote explained, but I'm simply not seeing widespread examples above that would discount applying the conventional historical terminology in respect of Rosas. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Astynax's understanding of the quote. Gonzales pretty much associates the revisionist movement with nationalism (not populism). Moreover, I request the following sources be made available:

• Astynax claims that revisionists are "not scholarly". Where is the source for this claim?
• Where is the source that demonstrates the "sanitized view of Rosas" is only mainstream in Argentina?

Again, the Gonzales quote pretty much denies any claim of WP:FRINGE. According to the source, Rosas "revisionism" is (in modern historiography) mainstream with the traditional history. I really would like to see a source that denies the Gonzales claim, mainly because that is what WP:VERIFY requires. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Important note: Horacio Gonzalez, as seen in the link provided by MarshalN20 above, is a sociologist, not a historian. Also, the link provided is not a book, nor a doctorate thesis, nor a specialized journal, nor anything alike, but a newspaper article. And the newspaper used as "source" by MarshalN20? It is the Página/12, part of the Kirchnerism, itself an offshoot of the Peronism, itself an heir of... the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism. More biased than that only if it had been written by Rosas himself. Lastly, MarshalN20 asked for sources. There are plenty in my sandbox: no book published in English in the last 25 years has mentioned Argentine revisionism as an alternative and credible view regarding Rosas. The few who did mention Argentine revisionism, talked about its political and authoritarian goals. --Lecen (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, your list of sources amounts to nothing more than WP:OR when you try to use them to reach a personal conclusion. They would be useful if no reliable claim existed with regards to the mainstream view; but such a claim does exist (and was made by Horacio González).

Gonzales' title as president of a renown national library weighs much more than his education as a sociologist. Also, please read ad hominem.

The actual source is Horacio Gonzales, not a journalist from the newspaper.

Instead of uselessly trying to discredit Gonzales, how about you present sources that validate the claims you are making?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

MarshalN20 said: "I disagree with Astynax's understanding of the quote. Gonzales pretty much associates the revisionist movement with nationalism (not populism)." Yes, you did say "nationalism" and nationalist revisionism has the same problems as other fringe viewpoints which are indeed outside the mainstream of scholarship. I apologize if you were confused by my reference to "scholarly" or "scholarship", but I am referring to scholars in the field of history. History ideally should be written free of nationalist/political biases, a hinderance with which it constantly struggles. Recent history is rife with attempts by political and nationalist movements to rewrite history according to their worldviews, and it is a strange suggestion that articles should give weight to such deeply flawed methodology. • Astynax ^talk 03:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I love your idealism, but that's nothing more than hopeful dreams.

1. Historians don't own history. They are not the only scholars with the right to analyze history.
2. People who write history, and the people they study, are all biased.
3. Historical revisionism (new ideas replacing the old) is a common process in the field of history.

In the case of Juan Manuel de Rosas, his "traditional" history was written by his political opponents. The "revisionist history" was primarily written by his supporters. While "revisionism" may have been fringe back in the early 20th century, this is certainly not true for the 21st century. The revisionist history has, as Gonzales notes, already become mainstream (in equal balance with the traditional). You seem to think that the title "revisionist" automatically qualifies as "fringe", but such an assumption is completely incorrect.

Lastly, and most importantly, Horacio Gonzales' role as the presiding librarian of Argentina's national library places him in the best position to analyze the current status of literature in the topic of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Up to now, none of you have provided a counter-claim from another reliable source.

All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm back... and I'm really disappointed by all this. The page linked up there is just an initial draft, which I could not complete, as noted by the template (and it is precisely because I realized that I could not complete it back then that I mentioned that I had to be absent for a pair of weeks). I never said it was ready, yet Lecen shows it here as if it was, forcing a straw man argument out of it (an incomplete draft will always look less convincing than a complete one). And worse, he tooks advantage of my absence, calling for this RFC when I was absent and wouldn't be able to reply to anything. And he even starts an edit war to attribute those ideas to MarshalN20 as well, despite his explicit refusal, as he did not take part in its writing at all. This clearly breaks the rule that the opening must be neutral. So, as the draft does not represent him (as he said) and neither me (because it's not complete) and I never said it was ready for using like this, I will remove it to prevent further misuse. Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I was notified of this discussion by Astynax. There seem to be two bases of dispute here.

One, is this material sufficiently notable to be present in wikipedia. Maybe/probably. We do have any number of articles on subjects of revisionist history around here, ranging from Sexuality of Jesus or Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, to Christ myth theory, to any number of articles on specific books which propose fringe or alterntive theories. Certainly, I can and do see that, if the individual works mentioning this theory individually meet notability requirements, they could have separate articles, or content in the articles on, perhaps, the author. And if the idea of his being a dictator, as an idea, is notability as per WP:NOTABILITY, and the various proponents of such thinking are discussed in those sources, then it could certainly be the case that there might be a basis for an article on Rosas as dictator, if there really is sufficient encyclopedic content for it to exist as a separate article.

Regarding the second point, honestly, the best way to proceed here, regarding how much weight to give the subject in this article, is to determine how much weight, if any, it receives in existing reference sources. I see at least 6 encyclopedias of Argentine biography listed in a 1986 guide to reference works I have in front of me, and I am certain that others have been published since then. I also am rather sure that the subject is discussed in encyclopedias relevant to Argentina as a whole, and probably other reference works relevant to his specific time and era. It can sometimes be difficult to determine, but the best way to go would probably be to look at the most recent highly regarded sources, and see what if any weight they give this subject. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas. Note that, as I mentioned below, there's no "theory" in all this (that is, a proposed fact whose validity is doubtful, disputed or unclear). All the important facts about Rosas are very well known, and not disputed. Nowadays, the only difference between pro-Rosas and anti-Rosas authors are the opinions and analysis about his government: opinions that, in either case, must be filtered from the sources when writing the article, as required by Wikipedia policies. Cambalachero (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that there is one other potential factor to be considered here, which I mentioned already in the discusion below. That is, specifically, to what extent were Rojas's dictatorial actions more or less consistent with those of similar individuals in similar situations in his time period, and to what extent they might have been seen, particularly by his contemporaries, as more or less objectionable than the actions of those others. There is a potential problem regarding WP:RECENTISM about applying a modern standard, however universally it might be held today, to anyone from an earlier era which did not hold the same values as today. If Rosas's contact in this regard is regarded as being basically "about average" for others of his time, then I cannot see any particular reason to give it any particular discussion in the main biographical article, perhaps placing it more in an article on the era or in the historiograpy article. But we don't say in our article "Alexander the Great was short," even though historians agree that virtually all people of his era were short by modern standards, unless he was noticed regularly and significantly short even by his contempories. I think the same standard probably should apply here. John Carter (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, after taking extra time to read through the discussion and I must say I've come to agree with Astynax and Hchc2009. Revisionism should be relegated to a section about Rosas's legacy or modern day views on the fellow, but using it as reliable source when writing this article? A political movement with a political agenda as reliable source? It wouldn't make any sense at all. In my self opinion, since there are enough reliable sources in English about Rosas, we should use them to improve the article. Not only we would be writing it according to historians who are far away from Argentine politics, but it would allow easier reference to anyone around. What i meant by my earlier statement seems to be misunderstood; only what really happened is what should be reported, later-day opinions can have their own section. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

An alternative approach

Having been away from this whole discussion for some time, I have noticed a detail: it has long departed from the actual article, to discuss things that are not part of it and likely will never be. Before continuing an infinite discussion about the background of Argentine historians, let's step back and consider a detail: what are we actually discussing about, as the article is concerned? If you check it, right now the only content referenced in a revisionist book is Rosas' infancy.

As of 2013, the only real difference between pro-Rosas authors, anti-Rosas authors and neutral authors are the opinions and analysis of the things that took place during his government. The documented facts themselves are well known and not disputed (a huge difference with other revisionisms, such as those of the Apollo mission or the ancient astronauts theories mentioned earlier). Let's say we took a pro-Rosas book, write down all the important facts contained in it, and filter all the author's opinions, analysis and trivial facts mentioned to advance the point that Rosas was a good guy. Now, let's take an anti-Rosas book, write down all the important facts contained in it, and filter all the author's opinions, analysis and trivial facts mentioned to advance the point that Rosas was a bad guy (note that I'm not making up any new process, filtering the points of view contained in the sources is an established policy). In both cases, the resulting text would be basically the same. For example, let's consider the end of his first term: he could have run for a second, but did not. A pro-Rosas author would say that it was because he was an unambitious man who wanted to return to his simple life in the farm. An anti-Rosas author would see a machiavellian plot to return to power later. But in any case, the cleansed fact is the same: that Rosas did not run for a second term.

For clarity, let's say this in a few words: There are no disputes about facts. Nobody says that something did or didn't happen, against things said by others. The only disputes are about opinions.

There are two ways to deal with this. We can mention the facts and describe the divergent analysis for each one that we encounter, or we can simply stick to the facts and avoid the opinions about them. It can be easier to go the second route, as Astynax has suggested in his first post.

As for the discussion about historians, there is an important distinction to make: although the layman may confuse them, it's not the same a historian than a divulgative writer writing about history. The difference is not in a degree or a recognition, but in the method employed to generate his work. A divulgative writer aims to the main public with no or limited information about a historical topic. He reads a number of books, combines them, and produces an engaging and interesting answer for "Who was X man?" or "What happened during Y event?". A historian's job is a bit more complicated. When he reads a book that makes a bold claim about the topic, he does not accept it at face value: he will take note of which is the source cited by the author for that claim, and check it himself. Is it another book? Then he will check that book, and check the reference contained in that book, and repeat the cycle all the way to the primary source, if possible. If the claim is confirmed, then it's good to go. But many things can go wrong, that the historian will notice, whereas a divulgative writer would not. Misquotation of sources or authors (sometimes they are trival mistakes, but sometimes a cleverly changed word changes the meaning). Chains of references that end in an author who makes a bold claim that is supposed to be true "because I, the author, say so". Ommited contexts that are an important influence to the development of the events. Claims whose ultimate primary source has a doubtful reputation (for example, a man talking about things he couldn't possibly know for certain). And so on... Having said that, back to the topic. To be a historian writing about Rosas, it is needed to come to Argentina and spend a lot of time checking the General Archive of the Nation and similar locations. Otherwise, a foreign writer who merely repeats what he saw at other books is working as a divulgator. Note that, when we talk about topics that span across several countries, a writer may be both things, according to the subtopic of the main topic. A British or French historian that never checked Argentine archives would be a divulgator when he talks about Rosas, but he would be a proper historian when he talks about the involvement of his nation in the wars against Rosas, if he checked his local archives (and the same is true for Argentine authors who write about Rosas and did not check Uruguayan, British or French archives).

Finally, my proposal. There's a book by Isidoro Ruiz Moreno that I listed in the references, and which I began to use at some sections (see his profile here). Edited in 2006, almost 800 pages for the 1831-1853 period, filled of plethora of quoted primary sources to back every claim, critical of Rosas, and written by a member of the National Academy of History of Argentina. Leaving aside revisionist authors for the sake of this discussion, I think it is the most solid book on the topic, either in Spanish or in English. I may start by writing the article reflecting the content of this book, as described earlier (that is, sticking to the facts and leaving aside opinions, analysis, trivial information, or overdetail that may be better for more specific articles). Then, we may consider the content of other books, analyzing author and claim on a case-by-case basis. Is this proposal acceptable? Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I encourage all editors to put aside their own agendas and focus on improving the article so it is more encyclopedic. The article already has an entire section "Criticism and historical perspective" which is supposed to be giving readers an analysis of how some historians view JMR as a dictator, and some do not, and some are inbetween. That section is horrible: it contains a huge quote from some minor contemporary, yet gives virtually no insight into the dictator/not issues. If editors would shift away from the talk page and actually start editing the article in an unbiased way (start with that Criticism section) things would go a lot smoother. --Noleander (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, Noleander. It's impossible to improve the article about him with a "criticism" section. As Astynax correctly pointed out above: "Despite what some have suggested, reducing an article to an unreadable series of 'Faction A says' vs. 'Faction B says' statements is neither required, nor desirable, unless the split between scholars has large backing on either side (again, that is not the case here)." That's not how it should work. And the reason to why I didn't start improving the article it's because I know that every single edit I made will be either reverted or changed by Cambalachero and MarshalN20.

  You said "...of how some historians view JMR as a dictator, and some do not, and some are inbetween". I still can't understand why most people haven't figured it out what it's going on in here after so long. There are NO historians who regard Rosas "inbetween" or "not" a dictator. Even Argentine revisionist historians regard him a dictator. What differs them from everyone else is that they see Rosas' dictatorship in a positive light. Did you see Cambalachero and MarshalN20 bring any book that says that he was not a dictator? I really suggest you to take a look at my sandbox. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm with Noleander on this one. In fact, I did ask Lecen various times to show what he wants to add in the article so that we may follow the WP:BRD process (and get away from the abstract). Instead, Lecen finds constant excuses to avoid editing the article; his few edits being purposefully minor and controversial (such as his changing of the article's primary image). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the quote is for WP:REDFLAG. The text is mentioning a government conspiracy to manipulate the academic records in order to make Rosas seem like a villain for political reasons. I'm aware that this is an exceptional claim, and so requires exceptional sources. That's what the quote is for: there's a supporter and promoter of said conspiracy, openly advocating it, at one of the most public places conceivable: he's a deputee giving a speech at the Congress. We are not talking about ghosts or wild theories here, this conspiracy existed, it is a known and accepted fact. Do you want to check actual sources for this? Fine. Note that Lecen carefully omitted this topic, he talks about the political bias of revisionist authors, but not about the political bias of the history being revised. So, rather than providing new books to the table, let's see what can we find at some of the very books that Lecen cited.

• Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America: Pages 111-112. "An essensial part of that project was to erase, or at least denigrate, the memory of Rosas and his legacy" "Mitre imposed historical exile on his enemies"
• Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History: Pages 24-32 "Excluding him [Rosas] and most other caudillos, Mitre laid the foundations for a phanteon of national heroes who could serve as models that later generations should emulate" "This brought about changes in the social position of the writer of history, who no longer necessarily combined intellectual prestige with a dominant role in politics and society" (in other word, before the 1870s historians needed intellectual prestige as well as a dominant role in politics and society) "Mitre himself acknowledged that there was a difference between the historian and the politician: stressing his own fight against Rosas 'tyranny', Mitre wrote that the book (note: the first revisionist book, by Saldías) should be criticised from a political point of view, but should be praised as a piece of history" "In short, if mitrismo as its later detractors claimed, ever stood for a clear-cut condemnation of federalist traditions [...], its undisputed hegemony did not last very long"
• Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview Page 276: "It is not strange, therefore, that the defeat of Rosas and the federalists increased the determination of the Unitarios to erase the political memory of the dictator"

I think this should be enough to prove my point. The condemnation of Rosas was political, and used history as a tool. Some revisionists of years later may had political bias, but as they say, "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone". The section must talk about both, mitrism and revisionism, it can not talk about revisionism in isolation. Cambalachero (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

All three books cited by Cambalachero regard Rosas a dictator:

1. Death, Dismemberment, And Memory: Body Politics In Latin America: "...had supported the return of nineteenth-century dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas' body to Argentina..." (Johnson, p.254) and "...Juan Manuel de Rosas, Argentina's most brutal politician of the nineteenth century..." (Johnson, p.13)
2. Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History: "...temporarily eclipsed by Rosas' dictatorship..." (Goebel, p.24)
3. Nations and Nationalism: A Global Historical Overview: "...the defeat of Rosas and the federalists increased the determination of the Unitarios to erase the political memory of the dictator" (Guntram, p.276)

Thus, I'm failing to see what is Cambalachero's point. I don't care about what Mitre thought about Rosas. What I asked was simple: to use reliable books in English published in the last 25 years (all of which regard Rosas a dictator, I repeat for the 572th time). --Lecen (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't care? Wasn't all this discussion about the use of nationalist sources? Because, if you didn't get the point, that's the case of Mitre as well (and, by extension, the case of those who repeat his concepts without further investigations) Cambalachero (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A proposal to break out of this loop - Lecen: Can you do this: Start editing the "Criticism" section (maybe it will get renamed later). Remove that huge block quote and replace it with a 1 sentence summary. Then pick the 3 or 4 best sources that state that JMR is a dictator, and add 1 or 2 sentences for each source that summarize that source's position. Identify those sources in the text (not buried in the footnote) per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Then, pick the best sources other editors have named that state that he is not a dictator (or that his dictatorial powers were justified somehow, etc) and go the extra mile and include those sources: 1 or 2 sentences each ... again identify the sources in the text. Then wait a couple of weeks and think of a better name for that section, and propose the new name here on the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't work. It would give the impression that there is a split among historians regarding Rosas: that he was a dictator and that he wasn't. Noleander, I'l be very sincere now: there isn't controversy regarding Rosas. Pick any book about Argentine history (on Google books, for example). Every one will say the same thing: "Rosas was a dictator who ruled through state terrorism and was defeated at Caseros in 1852, blah, blah, blah..." You won't find in any of them a single sentence that says "Ok, some people say that Rosas was a brutal dictator, some say that he wasn't". What you will find at most is someone saying "There were some people called Nationalists/Revisionists who praised Rosas and his dictatorship and believed that his strong hand was necessary to maintain order and keep the country united". How many books will mention the Nationalists/Revisionists? None. John Lynch doesn't mention them in his biography of Rosas (the book which is widely used as main source by everyone else); Thee sole exceptions are books which are devoted to authoritarianism in Argentina. Did you try asking Cambalachero and MarshalN20 to provide any book in English that says that Rosas was a nice guy? Did you see them providing any after so long? What I want is to improve the entire article and make it a FA (I have Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma right now in the FAC). Here what I'm going to do: I'll start working on the entire article, using sources in ENGLISH (not obscure sources in Spanish that no one has access to) and let's see how long it will take until Cambalachero and MarshalN20 start reverting or changing what I write. --Lecen (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No matter the year, the language or the opinions about Rosas, books by historians who made the historical work of checking documentation and primary sources should have priority over books by divulgators who merely repeat misconceptions before investigating them. So, if you use such authors, be sure that I will fix them as required. Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There you go. Cambalachero's message above is a good summary of everything that is wrong here. What Cambalachero meant was that he will hand-pick the sources that he believes that are reliable and use them. He will remove anything else that he doesn't like. My first attempt to improve the article was reverted: [31] Noleander, I hope you'll understand now why this discussion is going nowhere. I need the community to force Cambalachero and MarshalN20 out of this article and allow someone to actually improve it. This is not merely a content dispute, but it's about an abusive behavior from two editors who have monopolized an article. --Lecen (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The change you made has nothing to do with sources. As for reliable sources, I have stated my rationale: sources that cite documentation to back their claims beat sources that make claims "because the author says so". It's not a made-up requirement, it's required at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have rewrote the "criticism" section using mainly sources in English, as required. Cambalachero (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a step in the right direction. But there are a couple of areas it could be improved: (1) Just about every statement in a controversial section like this needs to have its source named, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. For instance: "However, divulgative historians often repeat outdated misconceptions about Rosas. This is usually the case of historians from outside of Argentina, who have no bias towards the Argentine topics but unwittingly repeat cliches that have long been refuted by Argentine historiography" - sentences like that cannot be written in the encylopedia's voice; the source must be named. (2) The section talks too much about the historians, and not enough about Rosas. The article is not about the historians, it is about JMR. Just about every sentence should be "Historian H, who may be biased because bla blah, said that JMR is blah blah". --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The source given is Marcelo Lascano, a well known Revisionist.[32] I wonder how long are we going to keep up with the farce. The MoS is clear about it: "[[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]] Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." --Lecen (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice link. A name plus the word "revisionism", and we should take a conclusion because google finds entries with the words. Any combination of words will have results in google! As for Lascano, he openly denies being revisionist himself at pages 28 and 29.

Point 1 can be fixed easily: just add "according to [[Marcelo Lascano]]", between "However" and "divulgative", and that's it. I made a stub article at Marcelo Lascano. I think he has enough credentials to be quoted. I don't fully agree with point 2: the part of the article that is purely about Rosas is "Biography" and subsections. Historiography, legacy, in popular culture, memorials and similar sections (included in most wikipedia articles about historical people) are not directly about the topic, but closely related to it. But I agree, I can include some summaries of the perspectives held by the different authors. The book of Devoto has plenty of information about that, I included some of that info at the subarticle, but there's still much I did not include. But I should make a warning: that author does not use the simplistic "X saw Rosas as a villain, Y saw Rosas as a hero", but more detailed descriptions, such as "X puts emphasis on the social order, Y puts emphasis on the religion, W and Z had different opinions on the historical significance of Z battle", and so on. It may not be in English, but I have not seen another book (in either language) with the level of detail of Devoto. Besides, as historians are the topic of that section, citing an author who talks about those historians may be better than citing historians directly, as it will avoid problems of original research and undue weight.

There's the article Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas for this. I can expand the information there, and then we may see how to make a summary in here. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Historiography article is okay, but there is a big difference between historiography (how the historians study Rosas) and the biographical information. This article should have biographical information: Was Rosas a nice guy? Was he power hungry? Was he just? Was he cruel? Was he a tyrant? Did he believe in democracy? Was he corrupt? Was he fair? These are plain biographical issues that should be stated in the article (provided there are sources). For aspects of Rosas that the sources disagree on, the article should present the 2 or 3 main viewpoints as follows: (1) describe the viewpoints; (2) name which major sources/historians hold the various viewpoints. The background information about why the historians feel a certain way, or how the historians reached their conclusions, does not belong in this article (but, it could be in the Historiography article or in footnotes). --Noleander (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am in pretty much total agreement with the statements above, although I would also add one other point of biographical information, if the information is available, as it probably is. That is, was Rosas pronouncedly more or less corrupt, fair, brutal, or whatever than his contemporaries. Particularly regarding matters of sometimes popular history, there has been a strong and sometimes rather obvious attempt by some authors to present inflammatory, sensationalist material in their books at least in part for the explicit purposes of getting media attention to themselves and their books. One way I have seen this done, rather consistently unfortunately, is to present information on a particular individual historical topic or individual out of context, in such a way as to lead the reader to see this historical subject according to the eyes of prevailing modern opinion, which is often radically different from the contemporary opinion. I very much tink that the "dictator" point rather clearly falls into this field. Yes, by today's standards he was a dictator, and the definition of the term clearly makes it applicable. However, a lot of historians today would say Franklin Delano Roosevelt exercised a considerable degree of dictatorial power as well, although I have yet to see the word "dictator" be argued as being the best description of him. In fact, I rather think that WP:LABEL probably should apply regarding usage of that particular word. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Rosas' official title, along with "Governor of Buenos Aires province", was "Tyrant annointed by God to save the Nation". An official title he gave for himself, it should be pointed. What I find curious is that some editors in here have ignored two key points: 1) both mainstream and revisionist historiography regard Rosas a dictator and do not deny his atrocities. What differs them is that the revisionists regard Rosas' dictatorship in a positive view. It was necessary for the country's survival, they argue; 2) that revisionists had a political agenda and they are not even mentioned by historians, except when talking about Rosas' legacy or the history of Argentine politics.--Lecen (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here attempts to deny Rosas's abuse of dictatorial powers. The one reference source I could find on Rosas on the Highbeam Research site clearly describes him as a dictator. However, there is another matter as well, and that is whether his abuse of dictatorial powers was more or less consistent with the similar abuse of dictatorial powers of others in that same basic area and era. Others have said or implied on this talk page that what people today would call abuse of dictatorial powers in the South American colonies was pretty much to be expected of government officials of that time. Certainly, I would think it likely that those trying to regard Rosas positively would also be among the more likely to also downplay or try to whitewash his abuses. But I do tend to think that, if Rosas' misconduct was more or less of the level consistently met by government officials of his time, the best place to address that would be a separate article dealing more clearly with the conduct of government officials of South and/or Latin America at the time. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

He was nicknamed "El Tigre del Palermo" ("The Tiger of Palermo", after his residence near Buenos Aires) during his rule precisely because of how brutal his regime was. "Rosas would go down in history a one of th cruelest of rulers as well as one of the most powerful." (Lynch, p.117) "People were overcome not siply by sympathy for the victims but by the fear that at the very moment when normality and prosperity appeared to be at hand, Buenos Aires was returning to the terror of more barbarous times. They were reminded dramatically of the limitless power of Rosas and their own helplessness." (Lynch, pp.116-117) "The terror now reached its climax. In the last days of March each morning at dawn, corpses were found with their throats cut in various parts of the capital, and this carnage continued into April." (Lynch, p.112) "During the peak of terrorism in October 1840, headless bodies were found in Buenos Aires every morning; for the terrorists the demonstration was as important as the deed." (Lynch, p.99) "Soldiers, officials, leading citizens, and ordinary people were all at risk. A mute hysteria possessed Buenos Aires in April 1842, and there was a danger that terror might produce not security but instability. Foreigners were arming themselves, Europeans consuls threatened to leave". (Lynch, p.113)

As you can see, Rosas was seen as brutal by his contemporaries. He ruled over them through fear, not because they thought "Ow, life has been always like that, anyway". He was not merely a dictator as Santa Anna in Mexico or even Perón later in Argentina. We was one of the kinds that were so brutal, that even other dictators seemed "nice" near him. Only Francisco Solano López in Paraguay, who executed thousands, including his two brothers and tortured his own mother, is regarded as worse than Rosas. Except for Cambalachero and MarshalN20, who for I don't know why support so fiercely Rosas, no one else likes the man. He was reviled during his rule and after his death for a good reason. That's why only the Argentine fascists (Nationalists/Revisionists) see him is positive light. Do you doubt it? Then read John Lynch's Argentine Caudillo. After that, go make a research yourself. You'll notice that every single book in English says that he was a brutal dictator. --Lecen (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecen, the brutality of Rosas' regime (the extent of it disputed) is not a validation for him to be labeled a "dictator" under the encyclopedia's voice. After all, brutality is not reserved for dictatorships, and Rosas was not the devil's spawn. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

On the "Historiograpy" article, this is a great idea. I have seen the Eliade Encyclopedia of Religions has multiple articles on "History of study" of various religious groups, which allows for discussion of how the academic view of a given subject has changed over time, and also what has caused those changes. I hope to see many archaic religious traditions get similar articles in the future. But, like Noleander above, I think that article, not this one, is the place for discussion of that matter. If there is some sort of academic dispute about whether his specific actions, which may be historically unquestioned, are unique enough or extreme enough in comparison to that of his contemporaries to merit particular praise or criticism for him, that article, or some other, is probably a better place for that discussion than this one. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

John's comments are, again, reflecting the consensus of most editors in the discussion. Use WP:LABEL with contentious statements (particularly when using the term "dictator"). See the articles of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, where the same logic is followed. Moreover, as I have explained countless times, Rosas' "dictatorship" mainly concerns his second term as governor. Rosas did plenty of other notable things prior to that controversial second term. For these reasons, to use the encyclopedia's voice to label Rosas as a "dictator" would be incorrect on several aspects. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting: by mere force of plain common sense, John Carter has arrived by himself to one of the ideas proposed by the revisionist authors. Lecen can confirm it by himself, at page 68 of Pacho O'Donnell's book, which he has, which describes that Rosas' abuses was not really that different from those of José María Paz and the unitarians, the rivals in the civil war. I have also read somewhere else that the number of people who died during Rosas' government is not very different than that caused by the governments of Rivadavia or Urquiza. Too much for modern standards (as we expect 0 executions for political reasons from modern governments), but common in the time; and in fact not neutral to be highlighted in this case and neglected in the others. Cambalachero (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Although this discussion is interesting, let us not lose sight of policy. It is not the job of editors to enforce a "neutral" tone that is not reflected in reliable sources. Nor is it acceptable to synthesize an apologetic picture of Rosas based upon the actions of other contemporary leaders. Rather, edits are to reflect what references say in a way that reflects the weight of scholarly opinion. For this last reason alone, Rosas should be described as a "dictator" simply because of the overwhelming use of that term to describe him in both older works and recent reliable sources (including other encyclopedia articles). Removing "dictator" is itself PoV and/or WP:OR as it does not reflect the weight of sources. Again, the few exculpatory revisionist opinions (usually in support of premises that stand quite apart from Rosas' biography or the history of his period) are not widely supported enough to warrant dispensing with the term "dictator" in the body of articles concerning Rosas, though a well-referenced footnote that deals with the sanitized, revisionist view of Rosas would be fine. • Astynax ^talk 09:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what you say is incorrect. It is precisely the job of editors to write articles with a neutral tone, even if the sources themselves have a point of view. Verifiability does not prevail over neutrality, both must be used. Check Wikipedia:Verifiability#Neutrality. As for the rest, it is a bit of a tautology, "it's fringe because it's fringe". Cambalachero (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecen's image edit is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time, mainly because I warned about his behavior just a few moments prior to his action (see [33]). All that Lecen ever does in the article is change the main image. His claim that this is his "first attempt" is false; he has repeatedly done this with the intention of deceiving others into thinking he is actually doing something positive for the article and being unfairly reverted (see [34]; see also the "something that must be told" discussion held in this talk page concerning Lecen's image changes: [35]). Now, please tell me, who is the one exhibiting "abusive" behavior? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, if I may, I'd like to just make a simple statement. I've not been on Wikipedia for a long time, but I've been here long enough to know this: We, as editors, are not to decide what parts of history and knowledge are to our liking, nor are we to reflect on them personally; we write articles as pieces that use all sourced knowledge out there. We are not allowed to have a point of view on the subject, it's not our place, so lets throw out this pro-Rosas and anti-Rosas non-sense. This article is to be the accumulation of the works of credible sources in an clean and informative manor. Should the source exist and the action in history happened, it should be recorded. If two sides have different opinions? state the fact and then the difference of opinion, I mean seriously, it is not that hard of a thing to do. Sure there may be those of us who have personal bias against or for the man, but that's irrelevant. I implore you all, please let us just throughout this discussion that's going on here and just add the information. Who are we to decide what is worthy or true in history for a Wikipedia article? It is not our place, we are merely those that bring all sources, points of views, and their recordings together into an article that the public can find helpful. I find it quite dismaying that the mature editors of this site are talking about whether some information should be left out or whether it should be presented a different way; in my opinion, this is what gives our helpful site a bad reputation amongst academics and scholars, but that's just me. Once again, let's just add everything the man did and the different views, its not hard to do. I hope we may all solve this with maturity and efficiency, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm on the side of Cristiano. All this pro vs. anti is pure nonsense. Even Cambalachero has mentioned that this "debate" is nonexistent in modern Rosist historiography. Several other users have also pretty much recommended the same thing as Cristiano ("just add everything the man did and the different views, its not hard to do").--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. As I pointed before, I have no problem in working with both pro-Rosas, anti-Rosas and neutral sources. Filtered of opinions and analysis, the facts they all describe are basically the same. Cambalachero (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

This discussion has been going on for months now, and it shouldn't go on forever. Lecen claims that there is academic consensus is treating Rosas like a monster, and that those who do not are just a minority of fringe authors, unworthy of consideration, even if heading national cultural institutions. Before going on, then, let's remember Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Academic consensus. Let me cite

“ The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. Stated simply, any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. ”

So far, Lecen has only provided quotes of historians saying bad things about Rosas. He never cited any source pointing the existence of the alleged anti-Rosas academic consensus. He also says that revisionists are not reliable because many ones had political ideas, but again, none of his sources say that their documentary work was wrong or that their work is not accepted nowadays. He keeps talking about English sources as something set apart from Argentine sources in Spanish, but none of the sources he provided ever talked about such a third group of non-Argentine authors when talking about the disputes, much less about the existence of a consensus (in fact, in the prologue of his book, Lynch said that Rosas is all but forgotten among English authors... and to talk about a consensus among scholars, there has to be a sizeable body of scholars working on the topic to begin with). Unless such sources are provided, Lecen's proposal should be ignored. Cambalachero (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Lynch said: "Scholar and specialists are familiar with the world of Rosas because it reveals the growth of great states, the expansion of frontiers, the role of patron and client, the roots of dictatorship, and the use fo state terrorism. Argentines have long been fascinated and outraged by Rosas, and the Spanish edition [of Lynch's work] competes in their bookshops with numerous national histories of the caudillo. In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten, though Britan supported him, fought him, traded with him, and finall, rescued him." (Lynch, 2001, p.ix) You should either quote it correctly or not quote it all. Lynch was talking about the average English-speaking person, not specialists.

I didn't provide only "quotes of historians saying bad things about Rosas". I provided quotes from every single book published in English that mention Rosas in the past 25 years. It's not my fault if you are so supportive of a brutal dictator and every single historian isn't. Where is this "third group of non-Argentine authors"?

"He also says that revisionists are not reliable because many ones had political ideas, but again, none of his sources say that their documentary work was wrong or that their work is not accepted nowadays". They aren't reliable simply because no English speaking author has used their ideas in books. Simple like that. --Lecen (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are using Lynch's quote to your liking. What does Lynch say? "In the English-speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten". The "English-speaking world" includes several people (common folk, historians, economists, geologists, writers, etc.). However, the basic point of Lynch's statement pretty much sides with Cambalachero. It is not surprising that Lynch's work is widely known in the English-speaking world; aside from it being a great book, it's probably also the only book about Rosas worthy of praise in the English language.

"Academic consensus" cannot be established from a single book, no matter how good that book may be by itself.

Lastly, Lecen's claim that Spanish-speaking authors are unreliable if their view is not cited by English-speaking authors is completely absurd. The statement also pretty much sums up the problem with Lecen's position, and why Wikipedia should not uphold it.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I was quite clear that English speaking historians do not use Revisionist sources. not every single Spanish speaking historian. The books in English about the history of Argentina and Rosas use mostly sources in Spanish. Just check the bibliography. And I won't bother talking about what Lynch said. Your interepretation of what he clearly said is hilarious. --Lecen (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to evade the question with tangencial topics. The guideline is clear: the existence of a consensus must be mentioned explicitly in some sources, it's not something that editors may judge by themselves. You say there is consensus in calling Rosas a dictator? Bring sources that say so. You say that pro-Rosas authors are a tiny unaccepted minority? Bring sources that say so.

By the way, I have only seen the first page of the "notes" of Lynch's work, pages 168 to 191 are not available, but even there I noticed many interesting names: Adolfo Saldías, Emilio Ravignani, Carlos Ibarguren, Julio Irazusta, Fermín Chávez... yes, you said clearly that English speaking historians do not use Revisionist sources; question is, is that actually true? Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to draw it for you: the view that Rosas was an honorable man, a national hero, a role model, etc... advocated by revisionists is not accepted by mainstream historians. How many times do I have to say this? You're wasting my time, Cambalachero. The RfC is the place for other editors to share their thoughts. It's obvious by now that you and I will never get into an agreement. --Lecen (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

However, I am unaware that anyone in this discussion is really making any such contention here. Creating straw-man arguments to rip down is also a waste of time of others. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bring the sources that say so. Cambalachero (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree, that wehat is required is the sources. In general, I think the majority of senior editors around here would say that the best sources to be used in determining weight and content are the extant well-regarded recent reference works, like encyclopedias, on the topic. I find only one such encyclopedic article about Rosas on the Highbeam Research site, apparently written by John Lynch, which is from the 2008 Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. I am more than willing to email it to anyone requesting it and giving me their e-mail address to send it to. I do note that the very short lead section, one sentence long, calls him a "dictator", and that the 14 paragraph article does contain one paragraph exclusively about terrorist tactics, herein quoted in full: "Rosas therefore held in reserve another weapon, terror. He used it as an instrument of government, to eliminate enemies and control his own supporters. The special agent of terrorism was the Sociedad Popular Restauradora (Popular Society of the Restorer), a political club and a paramilitary organization. The Society had an armed wing, commonly called the mazorca, whose members were the terrorists on the streets. The incidence of terrorism varied according to the pressures on the regime, rising to a peak in 1839–1842, when French intervention, internal rebellion, and unitarist invasion threatened to destroy the Rosas state and produced violent countermeasures. The use of state terrorism was an essential and unique feature of the Rosas regime." It also says, a bit earlier, "Rosas ruled from 1829 to 1832 with absolute power," and "Propaganda was an essential ingredient of rosismo, and conformity in dress, language, and behavior was imposed. The church rallied to the cause, supported the dictator, and extolled the federal system. But the ultimate sanction of the regime was force, controlled by Rosas and applied by the military and the police."

Having said all that, I also believe that, personally, the word "dictator" is one which in a lot of ways we are probably best advised to not use extensively around here. It is rather clearly inflammatory, at least to a degree, and at the same time not particularly informative, as not many people actually have had their actual title be "dictator". The word generally is thus at least a bit of an expression of opinion, even if it is opinion of the reliable sources themselves. In general, for this article, I would myself be inclined to maybe add the quote "The use of state terrorism was an essential and unique feature of the Rosas regime," possibly with the text attributing the statement to Lynch as its author. But, in general, I think we are much better served by using the clear, less biased language, like governor, to describe any subject's position in government, avoiding words like "dictator," while perhaps using fuller description in the text to describe the things he did which have led some to call him a dictator. John Carter (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Saying that Rosas was a governor is a statement of fact that nobody disputes. I wouldn't advise to rely solely on Lynch, I noticed frequent gaps of information in his work and should be complemented with other authors, but the main idea is the one that should be used: detail all the facts concerning his rule, and let the reader take conclusions (or not) by himself, instead of telling the reader what to think. Cambalachero (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If this were only a term inserted by editors, I would agree, but it is a word nearly universally employed by reliable sources. Unfortunately, restricting the description of Rosas to "governor" is misleading and itself PoV. This would be like substituting "troubled youth" for every instance of "outlaw" in the Jesse James article (just because JJ may have been a troubled young man does not mean that he was not also an outlaw). Rosas may have initially held the post of governor, but that does not even begin to encompass the scope of his ambitions and activities. We need not, and should not, ignore the overwhelming scholarly consensus that Rosas was a "dictator" – that is the specific term they use. Mere governors, even during that time, do not create police states, do not attempt to grab control over neighboring states, do not engage in empire-building or embroil their nations in international conflicts, etc. Rosas rose to power by military means (notwithstanding the rubber-stamp "legislature" official appointment as "governor"), ruled by fiat, and ruthlessly maintained his position. The article as it currently stands is an uncited, PoV whitewash of the character of Rosas as presented by nearly all historians (whose views are ignored, other than to be dismissively treated in a "Criticism" section at the end). He operated as a dictator, and it is as appropriate to use thsy word here, just as we do in other articles (including Amin, Bolívar, Antonescu, Franco, Chiang Kai-shek, Papa Doc, Onganía, Pinochet, Francia, et alii). • Astynax ^talk 19:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually more or less agree with both Cambalachero and Astynax above. Like I said, the one-sentence lead in the refeence book I found called him a "dictator". My main reservation is about describing him as a "dictator" in the lead section. I can and do see that it might make sense to have the lead describe him as being a "governor who employed dictatorial and terrorist tactics during the later part of his regime," for instance, which seems to be fairly clearly supported by the Lynch article I quoted above. It also seems to me to be a clearer phrasing and more directly addresses, in a more informative way, the substance of his regime. Being not as familiar with the subject as the rest of you, am I right in thinking that it was during the period of the civil war and thereafter that he most clearly employed such objectionable tactics? If it is, then certainly saying that he employed dictatorial and terrorist tactics during and after the civil war is informative and I think reasonable. Beyond that, in the specific section about the period of his "dictatorship," I suppose I would have no particular objections to seeing the word used in the article at some point, although I honestly am rather at a loss to determine exactly how many times the word would necessarily be used in the article, as opposed to, for instance, the subject's name.

Beyond that, I also note that one of the 14 paragraphs in that article is clearly and exclusively about the tactics he employed, and I certainly think that we could justifiably argue that based on WP:WEIGHT at least the same amount of attention to that subject could reasonably be said to be due to that topic here. John Carter (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"The House of Representatives had elected Rosas governor of Buenos Aires with absolute power on December 6, 1829, and by the law of August 2, 1830, he was authorized 'extraordinary powers in all their entirety, to be used according to the dictates of his own knowledge and conscience.' At the end of 1832, he did not accept reelection to another term of office, for the House was loath to renew these powers. In 1835, however, he accepted the appointment once more when he was granted the suma del poder, that is, total powers, to e used according to his knowledge and conscience." (Lynch, p.128) Rosas was a dictator from day one, not in "the later part of his regime". The "first administration [1829-32] of Rosas had been a conservative one: it represented property, especially landed property, and it guaranteed tranquility and stability. He strengthened the army, protected the church, silenced the critics, muzzled the press, ignored education, and sought to improve the financial credit of the government." (Lynch, p.16) His second tenure (1834-52) things only got worse, which is when the regime became terrorist. --Lecen (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And we go back to square one. You say that there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus? Bring the sources that say so. Cambalachero (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still can't quite grasp why Lecen thinks that only dictators are capable of practicing "state terrorism".--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the above. Certainly, since the Patriot Act, some citizens of the US have alleged that the US government has been engaged in "state terrorism", although I don't know of anyone who would necessarily call Obama or Bush "dictators". Also, there is a matter of martial law, which when invoked pretty much gives the people in government dictatorial powers, although not everyone who has imposed martial law is also called dictatorial. Honestly, that seems to be more or less what happened with Rosas here. Also, honestly, government in general was a lot more restrictive in the past, even in FDR's era, when he used what could be called dictatorial powers to basically imprison people at Manzanar and elsewhere. And, I regret to say that edit summaries like "wrong" probably don't actually do a very good job of describing edits made, as Lecen used in his last edit here. I may well have responded more quickly if his edit summary gave any real indication of the specific nature of his edit. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And let's remember the starting point of this sub-thread: Lecen claims the existence of an academic consensus, but so far failed to demostrate it the way policies require (that is, with tertiary sources that acknowledge the existence of such consensus, not with a personal asessment). Let's avoid derailing the discussion until he brings the sources. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny that Astynax mentions Simon Bolivar. The word "dictator" is used 5 times, and under very specific contexts. Most importantly, he does not get labeled a dictator; not even Idi Amin gets labeled a dictator. ("Labeling" meaning using the encyclopedia's voice to freely denote someone as something, in this case "dictator", even in instances where the context does not apply). In fact, the only two parts in this Juan Manuel de Rosas article where the term dictator applies is in the discussion about the "Sum of Public Power" (dictatorial powers or not) and, afterwards, in the historiography section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There's little or no point of comparison between all those people anyway. The context and actions of Juan Manuel de Rosas have little or zero point of comparison with those of Bolivar, and both of them have even less comparison with Pinochet, and so on. That list mixes peoples from different countries and even continents, from different time periods and even centuries.

In any case, it's an abstraction that I'm not interested in discussing. Let's keep focused. As I pointed in the policy at the begining of this section, the academic consensus is not to be based on assesment of editors, but on sources that state clearly and directly the existence of such a consensus. None of the sources Lecen raised so far state that. I do not want to stay here discussing abstract things for all eternity: if there are claims about the existence of an academic consensus, those claims must be sourced, if they are not, then we must attribute viewpoints to specific proponents as the policies require. And that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

Please correct misspelling of Returning - first word of third para Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Test area

Content transcluded from Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas/Initial conflicts

The Anarchy of the year XX

Buenos Aires was attacked in 1820 by provincial caudillos Estanislao López and Francisco Ramírez from the Entre Ríos and Santa Fe provinces, who rejected the centralism of the Argentine Constitution of 1819 and the inaction of Buenos Aires during the Luso-Brazilian invasion of the Banda Oriental. The constitution was repealed, the Congress of Tucumán was closed and the authority of the Supreme Directors ended. This period was known as "The Anarchy of the year XX".

Ramírez and López signed the Treaty of Pilar with Buenos Aires and returned to their provinces, but López renewed the attack. Juan Manuel de Rosas organized rural militias of 500 horsemen in support of the governor Manuel Dorrego, with an army of 2,000 men. They defeated López, but disagreed on the following action: Dorrego wanted to pursuit López into Santa Fe, and Rosas to secure the borders. Dorrego was defeated in the next battle. Rosas supported the appointment of Martín Rodríguez as governor of Buenos Aires, and mediated in the peace negotiations. López returned to Santa Fe in exchange of 25,000 cattle, that Rosas provided from his own ranchs. This led to the Treaty of Benegas between Santa Fe and Buenos Aires.

The Decembrist revolution

Execution of Manuel Dorrego by Juan Lavalle.

A new constituent assembly wrote a new constitution and appointed Bernardino Rivadavia as president of Argentina, but the constitution was rejected by the provinces and Rivadavia resigned. Vicente López y Planes was appointed interim president during the transition back to a confederated state; Rosas was appointed general commander of the militias of Buenos Aires during his brief rule. Manuel Dorrego was appointed governor again.

Juan Lavalle, leading the troops that returned from the Cisplatine War, made a military coup against Dorrego. As it took place in December 1, 1828, it was known as the "Decembrist revolution". Dorrego and most federals left the city, joining the militias of Rosas. Rosas and Dorrego disagreed on the battle plan: Rosas wanted to move to Santa Fe, be reinforced by López and wait for the summoning of the people of the countryside; and Dorrego wanted to give battle immediately. They divided their forces, Dorrego was first defeated and then captured and executed. The execution generated a huge controversy in Buenos Aires, and Rosas and López defeaed Lavalle at the battle of Márquez Bridge, so he tried to negotiate peace.

Lavalle visited Rosas' headquarters and negotiated the Cañuelas Pact with him. Juan José Viamonte was appointed interm governor with the support of both factions, and the legislature (closed during the revolution) was restored. This legislature appointed Rosas as the new governor, as well as giving him the rank of brigadier. But although the unitarians had been defeated in the Buenos Aires province, the Unitarian League was still a military threat from other provinces.

Bibliography

• Luna, Félix (2004). Grandes protagonistas de la historia argentina: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Argentina: Grupo Editorial Planeta. ISBN 950-49-1251-6.

Discussion

A week ago, the protection of the article expired, Lecen began to rewrite some sections, I made some changes here and there, it was all reverted back and an edit war ensued, with a renewed protection of the article. But let's avoid any point finger, and try to prevent problems or escalating conflicts. To avoid the same thing from happening again, I propose to work at a sandbox here at the talk page, edit only here and leave the article alone, until we are all satisfied with the results, then we move the changes to the article space. The small page I provided above may replace the "Unitarian–Federalist strife" section. Let's discuss changes and improvements.

By the way, remember that this is a biography. The political events should only be mentioned to provide context, and then explain the specific role of Rosas in each one. For example, we do not need to know how did López and Ramírez won the battle of Cepeda, Rosas was not involved, so the result and consequences are enough. We do need to mention López and describe what was going on, so that when we talk about peace negoiations the reader understands what was being negotiated.

By the way, the Decembrist revolution has no relation with the Russian Decembrist revolt. It is another event with a similar name ("Revolución decembrina" in Spanish), there's no article for it yet but I'm working on one. Cambalachero (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"Mujeres de Rosas"

If someone owns the physical copy of the book "Mujeres de Rosas" (2012) by María Sáen Quesada please let me know. I own the Ebook edition, which has a different page numbering from the physical copy. --Lecen (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rosas' picture

When some says they have "piercing" eyes they are referring to his/her look, the way he/she stares at you. It doesn't imply strange or somewhat unusual eyes. "Piercing blue eyes" means "blue eyes" + "penetrating look":

piercing [ˈpɪəsɪŋ]

adj

1. (of a sound) sharp and shrill

2. (of eyes or a look) intense and penetrating

3. (of an emotion) strong and deeply affecting

4. (of cold or wind) intense or biting

See [36] [37]

For eyes or a look to be intense, it must be clearly open/visible and fixated. It is more about the eyelids being retracted and the look concentrated in your eyes, no blinking, that it is about the color of such eyes. In Descalzi's you can hardly distinguish the pupils, which is the core part of an intense look.

Let me say again: the blue is so glowing, and the image so small, that the overall effect is a person with no-white, small-pupils, blue glowing eyes. Eg.: [38] And I'm not the only one that has described that image as "weird" or "creepy", even uninvolved admins have said the same, so I know I'm not being paranoid here.

Another (big) problem is: the man in the picture doesn't look like the image that every Argentine (and, most importantly, historians) have about Rosas in mind (mostly because of his nose, I would say). Just look at the 20 pesos bill or virtually every Argentine school text book. They look like two different people!

This is more important than what we (mere WP editors) can conclude about how Rosas "really looked like". If every major history book contains a picture closer to the one featured in the bill than to Cayetano Descalzi's painting, then we're doing it wrong. A priori, you seem to be failing WP:OR. --Langus (t) 19:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. That weird blue-eyed phot should go from the lede. Regards,19:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Iselilja (talk)

The painting is a high quality scan from the cover of a book. "Sus ojos azules, de mirar frío y penetrante, ora se aclaraban dando tinte celeste a las pupilas" can be seen in a Revisionist source. In another book it can be seen: "Sus ojos azules y hermosos brillaban como los de un tigre". In a third book: "Su piel blanquísima y sus ojos azules contrastan con los colores de aquella plebe que lo va aclamando enloquecida". In a fourth book: "Juan Manuel era un muchacho notablemente apuesto, alto, rubio y de ojos azules ('ojos color unitario', como..." In a fifth book: "En la oleografía Rosas destacaba su aspecto altanero, enérgico; los ojos azules que le valieron el sobrenombre de 'el inglés', los rasgos firmes..." His eyes were certainly striking enough that contemporaries and historians often mentioned them. --Lecen (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My points still stand, I'm not arguing he had brown eyes.

What do you respond to the fears of original research and how history books depict Rosas? (I mean in actual images, not written text) --Langus (t) 19:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Fears of original research"? What are you talking about? Do you understand that our opinion doesnt matter? We should stick to what reliable sources say. Here is another book that has the painting on its cover. --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The Amazon photo (Dave Jacobs) is somewhat more normal though. His eyes are less glowing, especially the right (there is a discrepancy in that photo, as the left eye is clearly more "blue and glowing" than the right. I see there are a lot of different variants of the Cayetano Descalzi paintings; and I don't think we should insert an outlier, like this photo appears to be. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You personal opinion nor my personal opinion matter. Sources say that he had remarkable blue eyes and the painting is legitimate. Unless you provide sources, and reliable ones, saying otherwise, your claim have no basis. --Lecen (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I was about to point out what Iselilja noted. It would be perfectly acceptable to me to include a more natural version of Descalzi's. Have you thought that something may have gone wrong in the printing process of that book?

I understand that sources say things but they also show things. By pointing out original search I'm trying to say that we should not decide which picture is visually accurate or not base on our analysis of what reliable sources say. Books come with pictures, and those pictures were selected by the authors and editorial review, therefore they are valid.

Here you have half a dozen books that chose another painting for their cover:[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

I'm open to suggestions and I would really like to reach a compromise that would leave everyone contempt. --Langus (t) 20:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conf.)The paiting by Cayetano Descalzi is legitimate ok, but seeing that there are numerous "reproductions" of it both on Commons and elsewhere; often very varied, the question is which one to use. Then, it seems natural to choose a representation that is pretty common/in the middle. I don't think you have provided any evidence that your preferred variant is the general accepted one (and yes, my personal opinion, is that is looks like a really bad repro). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to us to determine what was more natural. Paintings of rulers were cranked out by the dozens by artists and their apprentices and details can reflect personal artistic preferences, whether the painting was a paradigm or copy, the intended audience for a particular painting, how recently the painting was cleaned when a photograph was taken, lighting used, pigments available to the artist, subsequent deterioration (traditional blue pigments being subject to UV fading), varnish used, etc. The point is surely that this image was, for whatever reason, prominently used by a scholarly source. It is neither WP:OR nor unreasonable to use it here. • Astynax ^talk 21:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that the Lecen's X image is more authorative than other reproductions of the paintings. Rather, it seems to be an outlier. Iselilja (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As it appears difficult to reach any concensus here, and I understand this has been disputed earlier as well, I think we should consider putting up an RFC. That is often a very good way of solving things. "Lecen'sX photo" of course should be one of the alternative in an RfC; then there should be at least one, but maybe two alternatives. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not place my name on anything. Following your arguments, I ask: why is your picture "more authorative than other reproductions of the paintings"? --Lecen (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted to have an easy way to refer to that particular photo, instead of referring to it by pointing to the glaring blue eyes. Now, I have renamed it X, which I hope is ok, and other alternative images can be named Y, Z. I'll answer your other question later. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Astynax: "it is not up to us to determine what is more natural" then what it is up to us? Because right now what I see is a questioned image being edit-warred into this article for no reason other than it is "prominently used by a scholarly source" (which can by said about many others, specially this one). Why are you two so obsessed with this one in particular?

I intend to open a RFC if you don't present a reasonable reason for this. You don't seem to be not looking for common grounds here.

Another issue: I've read in an magazine available in Google Books[45] that Descalzi produced two paintings of Rosas, one depicting him as a young man and a second one widely reproduced as "Rosas, el grande", whose original title was "Retrato oficial del Brigadier General Don Juan Manuel de Rozas".

It seems to me that "Rosas el grande" is not the version that we are working with, but the one I mentioned above. This seems to be a derivative work from Descalzi's original painting. I urge you all to see this discussion, although it appears that Lecen and Astynax should be able to recall it, as they were directly involved... --Langus (t) 02:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The request for deletion was made by Cambalachero, who was banned from editing this article forever. His opinion has no weight here. And no, it isn't a derivative work of Descalzi. It was made by Descalzi. You doubt it? Take a look at this link. Scroll down to the bottom. You'll see the painting. It's written: "Calletano Descalzi (a). Juan Manuel de Rosas. Oleo sobre tela. Buenos Aires, circa 1840-1850." Or you make at this file too. --Lecen (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Langus and Iselilja. Personally I think that photo in the lede is horrible and should be replaced, those eyes look radioactive. Since deciding on one picture as more authoritative than the others will be near impossible (given the large amount of portraits in existence that present wild variations in his eyes and hair color), an RFC seems like the most reasonable option. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Responding to User:Langus-TxT (re: "then what it is up to us?"). I assume you are aware that policy does not allow editors to insert their own point of view, including deciding based upon one's own aesthetic what is "creepy". As Lecen has been kind enough to show once again, this is a painting by an important artist of the period and executed by him, rather than a studio-produced copy, of which there are many. The current picture graphically illustrates and matches the historical description of Rosas which is given in the text. The current picture is of known provenance and is acceptable for use by Wiki standards. I cannot fathom the objection to this painting other than on 1) aesthetic preference, or 2) a desire to present an image that looks less European. I'll grant you that there are many copies and alternative images out there that tend to darken hair and eyes, but without provenance and in many cases without attribution, and almost all in dire need of cleaning or printed/painted using a limited number of colors. That does not make them more accurate any more than the darkened varnish and smoke made the Sistine Chapel's ceiling a better representation of Michaelangelo's original than the cleaned version of today. Lecen is not the only person who has submitted this version of the image over the years. If someone has a better, well-provenanced, contemporary image with a license that can be used here, that isn't dulled by old varnish and dirt and which reflects the physical description of Rosas accepted by historians, then I'm certain no one will object to considering an alternative. Needlessly resorting to b&w prints or grimey color knock-offs which make him look brown-eyed and dark-haired had better have more compelling reasons than have been advanced here. • Astynax ^talk 07:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Lecen and Asyntax seem to believe this picture is more suitable to represent Rosas than any other picture for some reason. Given the huge number of portraits floating around (a simple Google image search will prove this) thinking that we can objectively tell which one is the best representation of him when no actual photographies exist is of course not reasonable. The "physical description of Rosas accepted by historians" has to be interpreted by us and converted, though our own filter of aesthetic preferences, into a representation that we believe is suited. So it all boils down to aesthetic preference. They also seem to think the problem here is with the blue eyes and blonde hair when it is really not (even though the number of paintings that depict him with brown eyes and hair is, at first glance, bigger than than the number where he appears blonde). The portrait in place right now is simply unappealing and quite bizarre looking, that's all. There are many more portraits that respect his "European" looks and, in my opinion, look much better. In any case an RFC can help put this matter to rest so I say one of us goes ahead and opens one. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, let me see if I understood what you said:

1) Contemporaries and historians are wrong. Rosas was not blond nor did he have blue eyes. He has brown hair and brown eyes because that's what you saw in low quality paintings?

2) It is not posibly to "objectively tell which one is the best representation", thus, the best way is to propose a voting? A contest? Which painting of Rosas is the best?

Is that what you meant? --Lecen (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, first of all I'd appreciate if you could moderate your tone. It comes off as aggressive and it makes it look as if your intention is not to reach a sensible compromise but to win the discussion. Ok?

Now, to your questions. 1- I have no idea what in my comment is making you say that (I know I did not say Rosas was not blond haired) so I'll just disregard this one. 2- It is not possible to "objectively tell which one is the best representation", thus, the best way is to propose that more Wikipedia editors become involved in the process of determining which image is best suited for the article. Let me know if something I said is unclear to you. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I made two simple questions. All I wanted was to see if I had understood correctly or not what you meant. I have no idea what you're talking regarding a "tone" to be moderated. One thing that I learned is that when one editor starts playing the victim without reason, it's the moment to drop out of the discussion. I'm done here. --Lecen (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Response to User:Gaba_p: There are indeed many portraits from the period in circulation, however it is incorrect to assume that all these portraits were painted (or engraved) from life or by the hands of major artists. Nor is it correct to assume that all these portraits are in an equal state of preservation/conservation or that the photography is equal. Oils and varnishes turn yellow or brown over time, blue pigments tend to fade and not all photographs were made under ideal lighting. No evidence has been offered that an alternative portrait exists that is more accurate, and the assertion that the portrait is "bizzare" is completely subjective. You say that you "did not say that Rosas was not blond haired", and yet the other portraits of Rosas on Wikipedia do not show blond-haired and/or blue-eyed (whether the fault of the original production by less-than-stellar artists, or as a result of subsequent deterioration). The solution is simple, find an clean image that shows Rosas as he is described by historians (blond with prominent blue eyes), painted from life, and that is available in the public domain (so that it may be used here), and it can be considered. Otherwise, you are just wasting time by pushing a subjective opinion. • Astynax ^talk 17:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Astynax. Regarding this statement: "No evidence has been offered that an alternative portrait exists that is more accurate", the thing is that accurate here is also a subjective interpretation. The fact that written sources described how Rosas looked does not make it unambiguous to determine the portrait best suited to represent him because the written record needs to be interpreted (by us in this case) to determine which painting best fits said record. Look at this other portrait also by Descalzi which shows him with hair and eye colors quite different from the ones in his other painting. This is the same painter who you claim made the "accurate" representation of Rosas currently in the article. Why do you presume the same artist came up with such different representation of Rosas? I'd say that it is clear that those features described in the literature do not point to a person that beyond any interpretation had blue eyes and blonde hair, otherwise the many many paintings showing him with brown hair and eyes would make absolutely no sense. Furthermore given that blue eyes and blonde hair were at the time directly related to european lineage and thus highly appreciated by the upper dominant class (of which Rosas was a part), it is not strange to assume that they would be purposely exaggerated not only in some paintings but by written sources too. Let me ask you a question: are you also opposed (as Lecen apparently is) to open an RFC to get more outside input from other editors? For the record, I proppose (as I believe Langus did at some point) this image as a middle ground compromise. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to again be making a case upon the fallacious assumption that all the photographic representations were taken under ideal lighting, that all the oils are in good condition (or have been cleaned or restored at all), etc. You do not like the artist's depiction of Rosas in the current picture—which I do grasp. That one or more editors do not "like" a picture does not mean it should not be used. We are not creating hagiographies, and there is no need to alter the picture used in order to accomodate an image that does not reflect what historians describe. I do not see how a lithograph that depicts a 52 year old man as a baby-faced cherub is either more accurate or preferable than the more rugged face depicted in the current picture (painted some 5 years before the lithograph). It certainly could be used in the article, as it represents a cleaned-up version that would have been widely distributed at that time, but it is not appropriate for the infobox image. If you wish to launch an RfC, nothing prevents you or anyone else from doing so. • Astynax ^talk 21:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ortiz de Rozas

Several authors claim that Rosas original surname was Rozas and he later modified it to distance himself from his parents: [46] [47] [48] [49]

Does anyone have a reliably-sourced explanation for this, other than the one mentioned above? --Langus (t) 20:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"He immediately took off the poncho and chaqueta given him by his mother and silently left the parental home, determined not to return. And the break was symbolized by his accepting the spelling Rosas for his name. Rosas subsequently denied the story, which has folklore quality but lacks firm evidence." Source: [50] The best available source about Rosas says that it is no more than an anedocte and even Rosas himself denied it. --Lecen (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What does Lynch says about Rosas' father's name? Does he use the "Rosas" spelling?

Assuming that he does, and that his opinion is held by other authors too: wouldn't you agree that we should present both points of view? (i.e. some authors say X while others say Z) --Langus (t) 02:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas also had his name spelled "Rozas" even after his death:[51] León Ortiz de Rozas also has his name spelled "Rosas".[52] I don't believe we should add different point of views for something so trivial. I could understand if this was 300-page biography of Rosas, with plenty of space to discuss minor things about him. This is an encyclopedia article. We are supposed to be simple and straightforward. I wasn't even going to mention this Rozas->Rosas spelling in a footnote but I figured it out that sooner or later someone would come up with this argument. --Lecen (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Progress of article reconstruction

Four sections are concluded: Birth, Estanciero, Caudillo and Governor of Buenos Aires. I hope I'll end "Desert Campaign" soon. --Lecen (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Finished "Desert Campaign". --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Working on "Absolute power" now. --Lecen (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Done with "Absolute power". --Lecen (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Rosas was a handsome man

Could we modify this to "Rosas was considered a handsome man by.." or "Rosas was regarded as a handsome man by/because.." or something along those lines? A quote in the references from the used sourced (Shumay and Geisler) would be great. Handsomeness in not a yes/no factual property but rather a quality others (or yourself) bestow upon you. Just a minor nitpick. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the change [53]. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:50, 16 July 2013 (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)

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".[54]

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)

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)