Template:Did you know nominations/Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas
edit- ... that the historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas influenced much of the whole historiography of Argentina?
- Reviewed: R. J. Hackett (steamer)
Created/expanded by Cambalachero (talk). Self nom at 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A very nice article, and generally passes the DYK requirements. However; I am concerned about the inclusion of so much of Nicanor Arbarellos' speech: both in the main article in English, and in the references in Spanish. I think that much of the speech could contravene our guidelines on copyright violations. A couple of the paragraphs are also unreferenced; these will require references before the DYK can be approved. Harrias talk 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The quote is given in full extension having WP:REDFLAG in mind. The XIX century historiography of Rosas was distorted by non-academic goals, by people who wanted Rosas to be perceived as a dictator for political reasons, and conspired to conceal or distort the historical info about him for that end. Revisionism pointed those manipulations, several lies and misrepresentations, and unveiled info about Rosas that was concealed or neglected. More than that, the current argentine historiography has incorporated those corrections, and several things that were once part of revisionism are know established knowledge. Still, many people may simply read that revisionism claims that there was a conspiracy, and automatically dismiss it as fringe (not to mention the unintencional confusion of revisionism as a way to handle historiography, with the infamous people who say nonsenses about WWII). "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and discussing the academic merits and reliability of Luna, Gonzalez or Devoto may be too subtle, so that quote is really helpful: what's better to prove that there was a real conspiracy, that to point a supporter of it, explaining the need to set such a conspiracy? A promoter that is not a random guy, not even a known author, but a legislator, and whose explanation took place in the Congress precisely when discussing about Rosas. Surely, the extraordinary source needed to strengthen an extraordinary claim.
- Copyright is not a problem here: the speech was given more than 150 years ago. Any copyright there may be to it would be long expired.
- I will complete the references in a pair of days. Cambalachero (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done, I have referenced the remaining paragraphs Cambalachero (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I like this article, but I have a few thoughts for you. You rely very heavily on Devoto; while this is understandable given the subject of his book, can you try to add in quotes or information from the books he's discussing that supports Devoto's conclusions? We don't want to simply summarize the meat of his book here so people don't have to buy the book. ;-) I don't think that will hold up a DYK though. As a side note, I absolutely love the photo of Ernesto Quesada. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I will keep working on this article until at least GA level, this is just an initial draft. However, I should point that many of the books talked about are old books with no modern editions. Besides, the article is about the historiography of Rosas anyway, not about the biography of Rosas, so I must work with books that describe the books of the topic, if I worked directly with the books I would border original research. There was a recent biography by Pacho O'Donell that sold very well, but I did not mention it because so far I have not found commentaries of it as a book. Cambalachero (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I like this article, but I have a few thoughts for you. You rely very heavily on Devoto; while this is understandable given the subject of his book, can you try to add in quotes or information from the books he's discussing that supports Devoto's conclusions? We don't want to simply summarize the meat of his book here so people don't have to buy the book. ;-) I don't think that will hold up a DYK though. As a side note, I absolutely love the photo of Ernesto Quesada. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Done, I have referenced the remaining paragraphs Cambalachero (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
