Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:01, 5 January 2009

	Eva Perón has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 8, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Argentina A‑class Top‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics. If you would like to participate, you can improve Eva Perón, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

Template:FAOL

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Popularity and personality cults section cites nothing

The information in this section seems to have some value, but there are no sources cited. The most concerning is the quote attributed to Eva Peron - I can find no full speech transcript, or any details regarding that speech. IMO if that cant be cited it shouldn't be there. --76.16.93.253 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can provide sources for that section. But I have decided to remove it for the time being for the following reasons. 1. That section always concerned me a bit because I don't know if it flows too well with the rest of the article. 2. The article is already rather long and I have been told it needs some shortening. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to popular culture in intro paragraphs?

A while ago someone suggested to me that in editing this page I could consider the articles about Che Guevara and Joan of Arc as models. Looking over these pages just now, I see that in the intro paragraphs they make reference to the popular culture impacts of both figures. The Guevara page references his status as a pop culture icon, particularly the importance of the famous portrait. And the Joan of Arc page makes reference to her being an important figure in Western civilization.

This leads me to wonder if maybe something should be mentioned about Evita's presence in popular culture. I think that if we are to use the Guevara and Joan of Arc pages as examples, then this should be done. On the other hand, I fear that the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber is more famous than Eva Peron herself, which I think is unfortunate. Part of me likes having the intro refer only to the historical woman herself, with the musical, etc., relegated to the bottom of the article.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Andrew Parodi (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm late, but doing that would be wrong, as it would also be wrong in similar articles like Che Guevara or Joan of Arc if they do that. Fiction and non-fiction are not to be mixed, and an article about a historical person or event should be focused all the way in reality, and talk about related fiction at the end, when the real things about the topic have all been accounted for. If a fictional work about a historical person is more known than the person itself, then the purpose of an encyclopedia article about the person is to teach and explain the unknown things, not to perpetuate confusion.

I can mention another example similar to the Eva Perón - Evita musical much more closer in time. The movie 300 (film). After it, many people thought they knew about the Battle of Thermopylae, but they didn't, they knew about the film. The article about the real battle makes no mention in the lead about the famous, current and big seller movie, and it is fine it does not. Benito Sifaratti (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I am torn. On one hand, I'd like to include that she is important in popular culture, which would mean referencing the musical. But then, as you say, in the English speaking world the musical is more famous than she is, and this article could serve in reversing that trend. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think is a beautiful article. Maybe a just little long.(Mrak Sandowsky (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Thank you very much. Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up necessary

I'm not sure I did this right - I wanted to reassess the "good article" award given to this entry - not because of content but because certain sections are written in extremely poor English. I've tried to clearn some of this up but it's quite time-consuming. How do you tag something for cleanup? Furthermore, the article, while comprehensive, may just be too long. There certainly seems to be an excess of quotations. Vikingwoman2 (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've become aware of that. I'm attempting to clean it up section by section now. And I'll see about removing some of the quotes. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible future source

Contains a profile of Evita: 100 Most Important Women of the 20th Century http://www.amazon.com/Most-Important-Women-20th-Century/dp/0696208237/ ISBN 0696208237

Edits by Moderate2008

Moderate2008 has added a great deal to this article. I have removed the edits for two reasons: 1. The article is already long. 2. All of the edits seem to be without any citation. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Will be back soon to clean up & cite furthur (there were some citations) my previous additions. Thank you. Moderate2008 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing your recent edit to the intro paragraphs because it was redundant. You inserted into the very first paragraph that she was made the spiritual leader of the nation, but this is already mentioned in the third intro paragraph. This article is currently a "Good Article," but it has come close to losing this status on at least one occasion. I am trying to make sure it retains that status. I think that in order for this article to retain the "Good Article" status it needs to remain succinct as possible. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference to ALW musical in lede

A fellow editor has suggested that the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber be mentioned in the intro paragraphs. This had previously been discussed. The decision that had previously been reached is that there are many renderings of her life and it is unfortunate that most people know her solely from the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and perhaps this article could aid in reversing this trend. So, with this in mind, I made sure that the intro paragraphs reference the overall international phenomenon of her life, that is, the many renderings, not giving weight to any one particular rendering. Rather than say "she is the subject of the ALW musical" it is more democratic to say "she is the subject of many works" and then the specific, individual works, can be listed more specifically later in the article. (Her profile in Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't even make reference to the musical by ALW at all.) Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

←in the earlier discussion you acknowledge that:

the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber is more famous than Eva Peron herself

which is surely justification enough to mention it in the lede? Whether this fame is "unfortunate " is PoV; but it is a fact which we should take into account. It is not our place to try to influence such matters. Such fame does not extend to other works, and the matter is not one of "democracy". Nor are we governed by EB. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the historical woman herself. This is not an article about the musical. Given that the musical is indeed more famous than the woman herself, the musical has its own article: Evita (musical). It is not POV to point out that this is an article about the historical woman herself.

The musical itself was not important in the life of the historical woman. The musical was written more than 20 years after the death of the historical woman. The historical woman has been the subject of many renderings, and that fact is mentioned in the intro paragraphs.

Incidentally, in the English speaking world the musical is more famous than the historical woman. This is not the case in Latin America, and it is particularly not the case in Argentina. In Argentina the historical woman is more famous, with the musical being but a mere footnote. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not claimed that "this is an article about the musical"; nor have I claimed that it is PoV to point out that "this is an article about the historical woman herself". Please try not to introduce straw-man arguments. It is not unreasonable to mention an extremely significant ("more famous than Eva Peron herself") part of her legacy in the lede of the article about her; whether or not it has its own article is immaterial. Since this article is part of the English-language Misplaced Pages, "the English speaking world" is its primary audience. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll set aside the fact that I don't view my arguments to be "straw man arguments".... Frankly, I'm not even sure what that means, but I assume that it is not good.

You have agreed with every statement I've made. That this is an article about the historical woman. That the musical has its own article. You have also agreed that in the English speaking world the musical is more famous than the woman. (It seems to be that it is not immaterial that the musical has its own article. The fact that it has its own article establishes that it is notable, which is what you are saying to begin with.)

The consequence of this is that people have come to believe that the musical is the true history of the woman. Many biographers now agree that the musical is very inaccurate, having been based on the highly inaccurate biography The Woman with the Whip. The concern I have is that by introducing the musical early in the biography we will be mixing the characterization of the woman in the musical with the historical woman, thus seeming to endorse the idea that the musical is correct history.

In other words, the problem is that many people confuse the historical woman with the characterization of the historical woman in the musical by Lloyd Webber. My concern is that to emphasize the musical this early in the article is to endorse this confusion. As I also mention, to introduce the musical this early in the article is to emphasize a cultural bias. The musical is not more famous in the Spanish speaking world, the very world from which Eva Peron originates. See, for example, the Spanish language article about Eva Peron (http://es.wikipedia.org/Eva_Peron) -- which is a Featured Article; it does not reference the musical in the lede.

Mahatma Gandhi was the subject of a hugely successful biography motion picture, but this is not mentioned in the lede in his biography.

At any rate, her importance in popular culture is already discussed in the succinctly written lede. The most famous, though hardly the only, manifestation is the musical -- which is already mentioned as well, though lower in the article.

Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear how you can assert that your arguments are not "straw men", while saying that you do not know what that means. That's by-the-by, The fact that I have not disputed factual matters does not mean that I have to agree with the flawed conclusion which you have drawn from them. Your Gandhi argument is a red herring, since the movie is not "more famous" than the man. The Spanish article is another red herring. No cultural bias is introduced by a bald factual statement that she is the subject of a notable musical. If the LW musical is not factually accurate then it should be mentioned in the lede as, say, the "partially fictionalised musical…". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is starting to get brittle to say the least, if not a little geeky as well. (lol) I fear we shall be reduced to eye poking and wedgies shortly. (lol) So, I will refrain from going any further in presenting my case. I've already presented my arguments and they have been met with rejection. (While I'm not too sure what a straw man argument is, the implication is obvious: not sound, in your opinion.) And you have presented your argument, and I have stated that I don't agree. So, I think the only recourse at this point is to ask for a third-party to intervene. I think the Misplaced Pages rule is that after an article has been reverted three times then both parties need to cease for at least 24 hours and seek intervention from someone else. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I saw this dispute on third opinion, and after reviewing it, here's my take:

This is a question about the lead of the article. The lead of the article is covered by the WP:LEAD guideline. The lead guideline says that it should summarise the important parts of the article, with emphasis that "should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources". Popular culture is already in the article, and in the lead, and in my view properly so. Because that particular popular culture item is by far the most notable (about half the popular culture section refers to it or is related to it, and I wouldn't imagine that that be undue weight for English speakers), so it probably should be specifically mentioned within at least a single sentence in the lead; I think most readers would consider it notable enough to be there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can come up with a succinct reference to the musical in the lead. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to; one was provided earlier today, which you've removed, more than once. As for this edit summary, "weasel words" was not a personal attack; weasel words is clearly defined concept on Misplaced Pages and "Outside of Argentina Eva Perón is perhaps most famously…" certainly qualifies. Please read WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one was provided earlier -- placed in the wrong section of the paragraph, making it appear that the ALW production was an Argentine production . (And I may add that your original edit was also uncited.) At any rate, I have included a citation. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The mis-location of the text to which you refer was already fixed when you reverted it again. The use of weasel words in a cited reference does not justify there use in a Misplaced Pages article (outside of a direct quotation, inside quote marks, of course). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your original edit was in the wrong place and was not cited. Subsequent edits were in a more correct place but still uncited. Please do not communicate with me any further in any context. If you have any further concerns about this article please take them to another editor as it appears that we have a great deal of difficulty communicating with one another. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't get to 'ban' me from this talk page; and you don't get to make misleading accusations about me without having them refuted. Secondly, you removed the text to which I refer after it was moved to the correct position, and thirdly it is not necessary to cite text in a lede which summarises something discussed more detail, and cited, in the body of an article, so your repeated claims that my addition were uncited are bogus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Cited later in the article, by me. It's wonderful to put a great deal of effort into an article, carrying it from being a stub to being a Good Article, continually protect it from being demoted, and be met with great disrespect by someone whose contributions rest on my previous contributions. (I not only wrote and cited the paragraphs regarding the musical, I also personally took the photograph that illustrates that section, the photograph of Liza Minnelli in front of Evita's tomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Lizaminnellievitatomb.jpg.) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I refer you once again to WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Geek -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that you also need to read WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Pwned -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed text

The net result of the above exchange is that the text which I added::

She is the subject of Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, Evita.

has been replaced with:

Tomás Eloy Martínez, director of Latin American studies at Rutgers University, has stated that outside of Argentina Eva Perón is most famously known as the subject of the musical Evita, but within Argentina the musical serves only to enhance the legend of the historical Eva Perón.

I contend that the latter is too wordy and detailed for a lede; and the that former should be restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1. "Evita or Madonna: Whom Will History Remember?" New Perspectives Quarterly v. 14 no. 1, Winter 1997, p. 32-34

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• A-Class Argentine articles
• Top-importance Argentine articles
• WikiProject Argentina articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• High-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• GA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles