Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 9 July 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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)

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

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

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.: 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:

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 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 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)

Ortiz de Rozas

Several authors claim that Rosas original surname was Rozas and he later modified it to distance himself from his parents:

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: 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: León Ortiz de Rozas also has his name spelled "Rosas". 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)

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