Talk:María Sáez de Vernet

Using blogs as sources

[1] Another source added, which is an WP:SPS. The actual entry referenced contains a number of errors [2], I could list them but it seems that source quality isn't an over-riding concern. It should be. WCM_email 09:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is used as "visual" support. There is a photo of the tombstone inside the vault. And the fact that the vault is an historical monument has been also stated during WikiLovesMonument 2013. As per the Self-Published-Source, like for Find a grave, "Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves." Elisa.rolle (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

From WP:SPS

“ Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources ”

If, as you are claiming, this person is notable, it would have been published in independent reliable sources. Those are the sources we should be using. You're not quoting policy, you're quoting the guidelines for selecting external links, Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, not a policy for selecting reliable sources. Even that suggests this is something that should only be done rarely:

“

• As an external link: * Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves.

”

It seems that you're finding it difficult to dig up reliable sources on this person. That should be ringing alarm bells for WP:GNG. WCM_email 10:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A photo of a tomb with the name of the person, for me is enough to prove the person is buried there. That is what I wanted to achieve. Whatever else is written in that blog, reliable or not reliable, I have no need to use it. Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

[3] How do you know she is buried there? WCM_email 10:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

And is this what we can expect for this article, WP:SPS that "good enough"...? WCM_email 10:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to achieve? if it makes you feel better, we can add a sentence like, given the photo of a tombstone with the name on it, we can presume she is buried there? is this what do you really want? give a spin to a story that maybe she is not buried there? there is a family vault (of which we have a photo in common wiki we can use and that is an historic monument), there is another self published blog that has a photo of the inside of the vault (that of course we cannot use), why we should "consider" the possibility she is not buried there? if it makes you feel better I will change the sentence making it more generic Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is to remain I hope to ensure that it meets the requirements of wikipedia, reflecting a WP:NPOV, being properly sourced per WP:RS. WCM_email 10:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your link doesn't exist and isn't on the Wayback Machine [4] either. I'm sure if you look on the Ministry of Culture site, you might find a link. WCM_email 10:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

that was a good suggestion, I found it. thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Citing Sources

[5] Unless I miss something, p.29 of this reference doesn't mention a brother called Loreto. WCM_email 10:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

not needed in any case, does not add value to the context. I removed the mention to the brother.Elisa.rolle (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So I wasted my time looking for one? WCM_email 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW it appears he was involved in Luis Vernet's venture to the Falklands. There are several references to Loreta Saez, including a dispute with William Dickson. The main references I've found refer to a military career in one on Argentina's many civil wars[6]. Strangely I can't find one that says he was her brother. WCM_email 11:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, was not me that added the sentence of the brother. Sincerely, once you put the citation tag, my opinion was that it was not needed to waste time on it. The parents are relevants, but the brother? without any additional context? not relevant according to me. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed if additional link could be find about Loreto, it may be worthy to add it to the context. But like this? not really. And then notability is not inherited, isn't it? Unless there is a meaning to adding the brother (like he features in her diaries? she gives info about him?) Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Her brother is probably notable for being somewhat of a psychopath in military service. That's not the kind of thing I like to write about. WCM_email 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, a profile on Wikipedia is not necessary only about "good things" (see all the serial killer profiles, that, "I" would have not write at all, but they exist on wikipedia nevertheless). If her brother was a negative figure, and he is not worthy of an article alone, a sentence on the sister page could be interesting. But as you said only if there is a way to prove they were brothers. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

National Monument

The Vernet crypt was declared a national monument in 1983 due to the connection with her husband. It was not for this individual and the reference as written implied it was because of this person. Happy to discuss. WCM_email 06:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fiction

The two works of fiction with Maria as the character. They're both romantic fiction and as such I rather doubt of encyclopedic value. There was a mistaken presumption that having works of fiction somehow made this person "notable". As can be seen at the discussion at WP:RSN here that is incorrect. The character in the book may be notable but it does not confer notability on the individual. WCM_email 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

To add, wikipedia is many things but it doesn't exist to promote romantic fiction. 16:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that two different author chose Maria as a character for their historical fiction. If they are not worthy of "further reading" as encyclopedic value, they are for sure worthy of a mention in the recent events. They are about María Sáez de Vernet, therefore removing them totally from the article is removing info. Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, MOS:FURTHER says that such a list is optional, and if present should contain "a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." An interested reader will not learn about the article subject (a real person) by reading fiction. It also says that the list "should normally not duplicate the content of the References section", which was the only role for the third link. Kahastok talk 16:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The two fictional novels were already mentioned. Anyone familiar with any topics related to the Falklands in Argentina is well aware that the more ardent are utterly fanatical. So to be honest it doesn't come as a surprise to me that two different authors did so. More of a canny insight into the Argentine psyche to flog an otherwise dull novel. WCM_email 16:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've trimmed the detail down. We don't need to advertise the publisher and author of romantic fiction. Happy to discuss. WCM_email 17:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I'm not edit warring but I see the material about two fictional novels is being shoved back in again with no attempt to discus. Do we need to advertise romantic fiction on wikipedia? WCM_email 01:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim "Since that time, Sáez and her diary have become popularized by other Argentine works, such as the two historical romance novels" is uncited. This claim is specifically that the profile of the diaries was significantly raised by these works, which is not the same as suggesting that the fiction was inspired by the diaries. The risk is the issue described in WP:POPCULTURE and WP:MISC where we end up with a list of any miscellaneous information vaguely related to her. Kahastok talk 09:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Also the same claim clearly implies that there are Argentine works, other than these two books, that have also made the diary singificantly more popular. To which works does this refer? Kahastok talk 10:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the term "popularized" which is perhaps too strong.--Ipigott (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As for other works, there have been a number of informative articles and commentaries in Spanish, including La primera dama de Malvinas by Leticia Mertin in the journal Clarín. The article is quite informative and picks up on a number of interesting passages.--Ipigott (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

So the thing that makes this person notable is that she is a character in romantic fiction and we have to give title, author and publisher in text? I dunno but I find it odd that members of a wikiproject that is dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of women is promoting a gender stereotype. WCM_email 07:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the justification for chapter and verse on two minor works of romantic fiction. Why? WCM_email 12:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? I definitely wouldn't be in favor of a long catalogue of "in popular culture" works that mention her name only briefly (as we have for too many other articles). But I think entire books about (fictionalized versions) of her deserve a mention, as significant testaments to her fame. They don't detract from the biographical nature of the article as long as they're clearly marked as fiction and put in a section that is not about her biographical information (as they are now). I don't know that the publisher is necessary, but the title, authors, and year seem to me like the bare minimum. (Also, see discussion below, it appears to be three books, not two.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it's trivia and it doesn't contribute to the notability of the individual. They're not testaments to her fame and they do in fact detract from the biographical information of the article. They give the appearance of "stuff" shoved in to pack out an article that will never be more than a stub. It's quite noticable that the article seems to be more biased towards fictional accounts of her life rather than her real life. If you want to improve the article, you should be focusing on the individual. Its sufficient to note that there are a couple of books where she is used as a character. WCM_email 17:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Diarist

Can we just quit with the insistence she is named a diarist? She is not a noted diarist and if you actually read the diary its simply a rather dull personal diary. She was never published in here lifetime and the publishing of her diary in 1989 is not related to any historical significance. WCM_email 17:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

To add, the accusations of sexism are inappropriate, I would say an apology is warranted David Eppstein. WCM_email 17:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Er... being a noted diarist is in no way dependent on one's diary being of literary value. A diary can be notable if it sheds light on life in a particular environment in a specific historical period. Being boring would in no way disqualify it, or its author, from notability.Deb (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The whole reason she is currently famous in her own right is for her diary. Therefore she is a diarist. Your (WCM's) insistance on instead calling her merely the wife of someone else is both sexist and counter to the result of the AfD. I am not calling you sexist yourself; that would be a personal attack. But the result of your edits here is sexist, and I am not going to apologize for calling it that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make that edit as it happens. And not it's not counter to the AFD, which had nothing to do with it. You also refused to attribute that so far you only have the opinion of one person in a newspaper article that her diary is in anyway notable. The fact that you can't deal with editors without assuming bad faith or without raising the temperature of discussions is your problem not mine. It seems from an outside observer your project is more concerned about numbers of articles without any concern for their quality. And your edit is actually incorrect, so if you're not prepared to discuss matters I'll return it to the previous state. WCM_email 18:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing matters. The lead sentence should say what she is famous for (her diary), not a sexist dismissal of her as non-notable (she is the wife of someone else). If you don't understand that and think reverting to the sexist version is better then you shouldn't be editing this kind of article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting rather tired of the high handed lecturing from you and the constant accusations of misogyny. Talk about content not other editors. I'm interested in accuracy, she is not a noted diarist, so how do we deal with the opening sentence? WCM_email 19:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You and you alone say she is not a noted diarist. Almost all of the other participants on the AfD disagree. Stop trying to re-fight lost wars. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that you are infallible and anyone who disagrees with you is irredeemably sexist. Have I got that about right? Even when the edit you demand is obviously factually incorrect.

If she is notable because of her diary, then the reason people might remember the diary is because she was the wife of the leading colonist of the era in the Falkland Islands. The 1820s were not some great era of gender equality, and 1820s Latin America wasn't an exception. He is the one who gets the coverage in the standard sources, making it very difficult for us to write more of a biography than we already have without WP:OR and without writing a WP:COATRACK for her husband.

So by demanding we not mention Luis Vernet in the lede, you're also basically removing any understanding the reader might get as to why anyone might care about her diary and therefore - ironically - increasing the chances of the AFD result getting overturned in the future. Kahastok talk 19:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's almost a self-defeating argument. I do agree that her diary probably would not have been considered of interest by many people if she had not been a wealthy woman, married to an important man, and indeed it might never have existed, let alone been published. So I don't disagree with her husband being mentioned in the lead paragraph. However, some of the above comments suggest that her diary's value depends entirely on her husband's notability, and that is clearly not the case. Deb (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the reason people remember her and her diary is that they have been taken over as a hobbyhorse by Argentine nationalists who use them as evidence that the Falklands should be Argentine. Which, whatever, but they are notable regardless of our opinions of the basis for notability and that basis has nothing to do with her husband. You might think that she has doubly-inherited notability, that the only legitimate reason for the diary to be notable is through her husband's notability and the only reason for her to be notable is through the diary, but that's not what the sources say, and your (WCM's or Kahastok's) opinions about the legitimacy of some reasons for notability and illegitimacy of other reasons are not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That's also true. There's a significant difference between someone's notability being based on opinions that we may not share and an article not complying with the NPOV rule. Deb (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It has been taken as a hobby horse because of who her husband was. If she'd married someone else and written a diary about her life in Buenos Aires or Montevideo, it wouldn't have been much use as an Argentine nationalist hobby horse on the Falklands.

But what you're saying now though appears to be that you are infallible and WP:OWN this article, and therefore in a position to declare others' views on what should go into this article as invalid just because you don't agree with them. That's not how Wikipedia works. Kahastok talk 20:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the pope. I have no idea why you think I think I am, but please stop making up false motivations for me. Also your attempt at a counterargument makes no sense. If she had married Vernet and lived in Montevideo or Buenos Aires (which, hint, she did), that would not have made her notable. It's because she wrote the diary on the Falklands, not because of her husband, that the nationalists picked it up. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

So, basically what you're saying is that you think Sáez's role (marginal though it is) in the history of the islands is completely irrelevant to any interest anyone might have in her. That her diary wes not written in any context at all, and that she just randomly pops up on an island that was barely inhabited, weeks' travel over the roughest seas in the world from the nearest European settlement. Presumably she was penguin watching?

All of that is explained by pointing out that she was the wife of Luis Vernet, who was in the Falklands to establish a colony. If that's sexist, it's because 1820s Latin American culture was in fact sexist. Kahastok talk 08:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

She was in the right place at the right time, a frequent reason for notability. Why she was there happened to be because of her marriage, but the important thing is that she was there and wrote about it. As for the sexism of the times: that is what limited her role so that the only thing of note she could have done was to write her diary. But the attitude that the diary she wrote should be credited to the fact of her marriage rather than to her own work is an entirely different type of sexism, one that cannot be excused by saying that the people of her time would have done the same. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And more personal attacks? I suggest you might want to refamiliarise yourself with WP:NPA.

Who is saying that Luis wrote the diary? Who is saying that Luis caused the diary to be written? I haven't seen that case made anywhere. I'm saying that Luis should be mentioned in the lede. This is not an article on a diary. This is a biography of a person. A person is more than just a diary. One would have thought that someone so focussed on avoiding sexism would appreciate that María Sáez was a living, breathing woman and not a collection of pages in a book.

Every historical RS that refers to María Sáez refers to her principally as the wife of Luis Vernet. And with good reason. María Sáez's position in history is that she was the wife of the leader and driving force behind the colony on the Falkland Islands. In biographical terms, without understanding who Luis Vernet was and what their relationship was, you're not going to understand who María Sáez was. Any more than you will understand who Sáez's contemporary Louisa Adams was without mentioning John Quincy Adams. The article Louisa Adams does refer to her husband in its lede.

This is a biography. If you want to make it an article on the diary, go file an WP:RM. This is a biography which means that it is an article on an actual person and the emphasis should be on the actual person. And if an actual person's position in history is not going to be understood without prominent mention of their spouse, we should not be afraid to mention the spouse solely because he was a man. Kahastok talk 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If your response to "that argument is sexist" is to whine about personal attacks, perhaps you should learn to distinguish discussion of content (that argument is sexist, as I have been saying) from discussion of editors (nobody here, including me, has been saying you are sexist). As for whether the article is about her or the diary: I think both (I don't think there is enough material to support two separate articles on each topic). Since the material we have about Sáez extends beyond the year of her diary, it makes sense to have the overall article take the broader focus. But since nobody has even tried to make a case that her marriage to Vernet made her notable (you and WCM argued the exact opposite, that it made her non-notable per WP:INHERITED, in the AfD), it should not be stated in the lead sentence in the position reserved for why the subject is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a neutral academic source, citing her diary as a source of primary information that has enabled a significant historical comment to be made? If you want to cite her as a diarist that provides an insight you need one. What you do have is an exhibition in a museum that is dedicated to furthering Argentina's sovereignty claim, in a country that regularly exploits world events to promote said claim. My personal favourite was when the Argentine delegation turned up at a symposium on sexually transmitted diseases to claim that Argentina was responsible for VD in the Falklands. At the moment by portraying her as notable for her diary its favouring a narrative that is not one related to historical significance but promoting one based on internal politics in Argentina. It doesn't meet WP:NPOV, not to mention you don't have a reliable source for doing so.

If you're going down the route of using a news source, the source found in Clarin, then that is a POV, which requires attribution. But the fact that you have to resort to a tabloid newspaper speaks of the lack of notability of this person. But removing from the lede that she was the spouse of Luis Vernet is suppressing significant information about this person's life. It was never sexist because we do mention that as a result she wrote a diary that has in modern times become politicised. To be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. WCM_email 07:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Where does this notion that something has to provide an insight to be notable come from? Where does this notion that my association with a Wikiproject must be the source of all my editorial opinions come from? (At least this time you're not one of the people saying that my opinions are wrong because I'm a mathematician...) In what way is prioritizing what we say first suppressing information? And how could you possibly think that trading scurrilous stories about venereal disease would cause other editors to think your approach to Argentine related subjects is in any way neutral and unbiased? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ann Frank is known for being a diarist, this person is really known for being Vernet's spouse and she happened to write a diary. At the moment we give a false impression about what this person was; that is suppressing information. WCM_email 07:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree with both of you. I would say that this woman is notable primarily for her diary - otherwise she would not need an article at all - but that the fact that she was the wife of an important person is relevant to her diary, and thus is worth mentioning in the lead paragraph. Deb (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind it being later in the lead paragraph. What I mind is the first sentence stating only that she was Vernet's wife, with no mention of the diary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Deb, do you see anything wrong in the original lede? WCM_email 07:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

“ María Sáez Pérez de Vernet (19 November 1800 – 20 October 1858) was the wife of Luis Vernet. She wrote a personal diary during her residence in Port Louis, Falkland Islands, which has been preserved together with other documents and letters in the Argentine National Archive. ”

Sorry, I did not mean to disrupt but I did not expect you both to be up so early (I'm on UK time) so I tried for some compromise wording. What do you think? Deb (talk) 07:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've PTSD, I don't sleep much. I made a few tweaks but was essentially fine with what you proposed. I would imagine Kahastok is too. WCM_email 07:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

PS I'm Scottish, also on UK time. WCM_email 07:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Credibility of Montarcé source

We are currently using Montarcé 1946 as a source for some of the factual detail in the article. Although his book should certainly be mentioned, as I think it is the start of Sáez's modern fame, the book by Peña and Peña doesn't appear to give Montarcé much credibility for being neutral and factual. Can we maybe find a better source for the details of Sáez's life? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain to you, the Revisionismo movement in Argentina is not noted for scholarly standards or for academic accuracy. The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.

A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] for example.

These sources pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia.

Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-7656-4000-0. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.

Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.

Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-271-06410-9. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.

Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.

David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-520-91724-8. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".

Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-0-520-91385-1. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.

The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Michael Goebel of Berlin University notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.

As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. Their main use should be as sources of revisionist thought but as they lack scholastic standards, unreliable for historical fact.

The author you've cited above is very much part of this school. It is neither neutral, academic or particularly reliable. It could be used to cite revisionist thought on this person but not as a reliable source for aspects of her life. Your problems is going to be that there is very little about this person, other than mention as the spouse of Luis Vernet. The material you will find is in sources like this and as Michael Goebbel has noted, Argentine revisionist authors aren't credible, they simply make stuff up. WCM_email 01:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you arguing against my position that we should find a better source than Montarcé? Because it's difficult to tell from your wall of text. It sort of sounds like you're agreeing with me, but in an argumentative way. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you just being a WP:DICK? I just gave you a whole load of information, seeing as you're determined to find excuses to ignore anything I say. I actually know this subject area rather well, its plain you don't but are prepared to be a WP:RANDY just to prove a WP:POINT. WCM_email 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked whether we could replace Montarcé by a better source. You gave me a long screed about how the Argentine revisionist literature is not to be trusted. Fine, but how does that answer the question of finding a better source than Montarcé? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to tell you outside of revisionist sources you won't find much, there is very little coverage in serious academic literature. You could try Caillet-Bois but you will find very little material. Cawkell has nothing, Strange has nothing, there is nothing in the Dictionary of Falklands Biography. About the only thing I can think of is a 3rd hand anecdote in Fitzroy but he never actually met the Vernets. WCM_email 01:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, this one "Historia marítima argentina, Volume 5" has her wedding date, one of the facts we're currently sourcing to Montarcé. It's published by the Departamento de Estudios Históricos Navales, which I imagine still has a pro-Argentine bias but might at least be more likely to stick to facts than Montarcé. On the other hand, I don't actually have access to it (only Google Books snippet view, which generally isn't good enough to use as a source because you can't see enough context). And it's also possible for some citogenesis to be going on (what Montarcé wrote about her, factual or not, might have come to be seen as fact by later sources); it's hard to tell without looking at what those other sources used as their sources. This one (an Argentine academic history journal which also talks about the wedding) looks similarly promising (at least better than Montarcé) but again I only have snippet view. And this book (again, sadly, only available to me in snippet view) has some material on Sáez from the point of view of a noted Uruguayan historian; maybe that's removed enough for less bias? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The principal author of Historia marítima argentina is probably Admiral Laurio H. Destefani. I've used Destefani myself in the past but with great caution for non-controversial facts. He is the principal historian of the Argentine navy. Its something that should be approached with caution because he wrote the propaganda leaflet printed and distributed free in 1982 to universities around the world. Historia may be useful if its linked to the National Academy, otherwise probably not. Argentina funds a number of government funded institutes that pump out low quality material on the Falklands. Snippet views are no good for facts, I never use them personally its too easy to be misled when you can't see the text. WCM_email 01:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately the material we're sourcing is purely factual (her birthplace, parentage, and wedding). And I can't see how being born in Montevideo could possibly contribute to the Argentine-nationalist cause, so I think the facts in question are safely neutral. I generally agree with you re snippet views, and would not want to use snippet-only sources for anything controversial (which I think is this whole article, at this point), but at least they can point the way to sources that we can make greater efforts to access in full some other way. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

[13] Do we have access to this source? Or are we relying on google books? WCM_email 01:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I certainly had access to the source through Google Books when I added it. The page in question is merely a chronological listing of Latin American historical novels, though, so it can't be used to add any more detail beyond the bare existence of the 1982 novel. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought so, you don't have the source material at all. WCM_email 01:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the whole page that I cited. I also searched the whole book for other mentions of the novel but there were none. In what way is that not having the source material? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that any of us has seen that the book in fact has any relation at all to María Sáez? The original cite comes from es.wiki, and it wouldn't be the first time they'd misrepresented their sources. Kahastok talk 09:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question. It's not clear from the title alone, so (bad-faith assumptions about es aside) we do need a source for it being about Sáez and the Falklands rather than some other Maria of some other islands. There is a source, which I would suggest using to replace the (not much better) book source WCM is arguing about above: the WorldCat entry for the book, which lists Sáez as one of the subjects of the book. The same authors also wrote a book with a more clearly relevant title, Nostalgias de Malvinas : María Vernet, la última gobernadora (1999), another piece of historical fiction, according to Worldcat [14] or maybe for all I know the same piece of fiction under a different title. Should we list both? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think not. This is a biography, not an indiscriminate list of books of fiction. Kahastok talk 21:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I see now that "the same authors" are the authors of the 2012 book, not (as I mistakenly thought) the 1982 one. I think we should replace Malvinas, la ilusión y la pérdida by the newly found title, as it's earlier and its title is more clearly specifically about Sáez than Vernet. I think that also implies sourcing both romances to WorldCat rather than to the currently-listed sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)