Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Current word length: 997; diff count: 39.

Cambalachero and MarshalN20

Introduction

Cambalachero once submitted the views of five authors as backing for his edits and reversions.[1] I noted that four of them were Nationalists/Revisionists (Fascists) who had been dead for over 40 years. I pointed out that the remaining author was Pacho O'Donnell, a Neo-revisionist who was "not a historian, but a doctor of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, a writer and a playwright". Cambalachero argued that O'Donnell was a reliable source.[2] He has been using O’Donnell's book as source since 2009 when writing articles[3][4][5] and when defending his point of view.[6][7][8][9][10][11]

However, on December 2012 on Wikimedia Commons, he indicated that Pacho O’Donnell and his book were utterly unreliable, calling the author a "divulgator whose mistakes I can realize myself". About this book he was pretty much straightforward: "Yes, I know what does the book 'claims', I have it. It is the same book that opens with a long quotation, which is not written verbatim, and does not use footnotes or documents."[12]

This entire issue may seem at first glance a mere "content dispute". It is really about users who have been pushing fringe views using unreliable sources for years, in several articles and citing as support books written by fascists authors whose sole purpose was to promote a political agenda. This sort of mis-citation and PoV-pushing is itself antithetical to Wikipedia's purposes, and efforts by myself and others to edit to better reflect mainstream historical accounts have been reverted.

Pushing fringe views using unreliable sources

Around September 2009, Juan Manuel de Rosas,[13] Argentina[14] and History of Argentina[15] still portrayed Rosas as a brutal dictator. Cambalachero appeared and began removing any mention of that.[16][17][18] He began reworking several articles to portray Rosas in an unbelievably positive light. This was soon noticed by Justin, who said to Cambalachero: "NPOV requires us to present the mainstream historical opinion. It does not require us to represent ALL views and fringe material does not have to be presented with undue prominence. Your edit proposal promotes fringe revisionist material to the same level as the mainstream opinion."[19] Justin also said: "Wikipedia does not exist... to give undue prominence to fringe material or historical revisionism... the fact that a few Argentine historians wish to rewrite history to suit a current political agenda is not mainstream".[20]

On February 2010 he attempted to remove the word "dictator" from Platine War and to portray Rosas in a positive light.[21][22] Astynax complained: "As this seems to be quite a radical departure from the sources I've read, I'm wondering if this author/source is pushing a fringe view?"[23] Since Cambalachero couldn't gather much support for his whitewashing of Rosas he began removing wikilinks that led to Platine War (where Rosas was still called a dictator).[24][25][26]

Persistent push of fringe views

Cambalachero also tried to gloss over their critics by concocting a pseudo-legitimacy for Nationalism/Revisionism. He created Blood tables, [27] where he attributed the basis for the nearly universally held historical view of atrocities committed under the Rosas regime to a libelous fiction written by a forger (relying on Revisionist sources).[28][29][30] He then created Historiography of Juan Manuel de Rosas to explain why the Revisionist view is the correct one.[31] To debunk the general view that Rosas was a brutal dictator, according to mainstream references written in English, he added this: "However, divulgative historians often repeat outdated misconceptions about Rosas. This is usually the case of historians from outside of Argentina, who... repeat cliches that have long been refuted by Argentine historiography."[32][33] Cambalachero is not even faithful to his own Nationalist/Revisionist sources, who also regard Rosas a dictator (although they see as something positive because it served their goal of establishing an authoritarian regime in Argentina).

One of the creations of Cambalachero was Manuel Dorrego National Institute of Argentine and Iberoamerican Historical Revisionism. This entity was created by Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who counts among her many objectives the rewriting of Argentine history to bolster Argentina’s claim to the Falkland Islands. Its creation was heavily criticized for being a transparently political decision. The article on Wikipedia says that its "scope includes as well other national heroes of Argentina, such as Juan Manuel de Rosas" and that the "decree [which created it] considers that the historiography of Argentina is biased towards the Unitarian Party, as the first historians (such as Bartolomé Mitre), and seeks to counter such bias."

In April 2011, Pol098 noted that the article had serious reliability and verifiability issues:[34][35] And: "What I suspect may be the case... is that being for and against Rosas has some symbolic significance related to recent Argentine politics".[36]

As usual, Cambalachero obfuscated and stonewalled, though one his replies was revealing: "ideas of Sarmiento or Mitre about Rosas are long outdated, and Rosas is currently recognized as an Argentine hero as well".[37] The name of both Mitre and the Unitarian Party were mentioned in the decree that created the Revisionist Institute. This began to clarify the rationale behind Cambalachero's behavior over the past years. The following passage he added to the Rosas article should help clarify: "Horacio González, head of the National Library of the Argentine Republic, points a paradigm shift in the historiography of Argentina, where revisionism has moved from being the second most important perspective into being the mainstream one."[38] The source given is an Argentine newspaper called Página/12, a prominent backer of Cristina Kirchner. Also, González supported the creation of the Revisionist Institute, whose president is Pacho O’Donnell, the oft-cited author whom Cambalachero presents as reliable. The dots connect themselves in this matter. Cambalachero has been pushing both fringe and political views. This slanted advocacy does not belong to Wikipedia.

I tried to remove Revisionist sources from and started rewriting the article using reliable sources. They reverted practically all my attempts with flimsy excuses: "There is no consensus for this change",[39] "unexplained removal",[40] "Unlike Smith, Lynch does not mention his source for this bold claim",[41] "analysis",[42] "this part goes off-topic",[43] "Redundant, he has already been described as authoritarian",[44] "This image makes no sense",[45] etc.

Current word length: 1702 (limit: 1000); diff count: 0. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Nationalism/Revisionism

The Nacionalismo (Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. It was the Argentine nationalist equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian,^[1][2][3][4] anti-Semitic,^[5][6][3] racist^[7] and misogynistic political movement with support for racially-based pseudo-scientific theories such as eugenics.^[8] The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographic wing of Argentine Nationalism.^{[9][10][11][12]}

A main goal in Argentine Nationalism was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..."^[13] Juan Manuel de Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina.^[14][12] This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revisionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas' image.^{[15][16][17][11][12]}

The Neo-revisionists appeared in the 1950s and still exist to the present. Some among them are leftists. "All Revisionists [Nationalists/Revisionists and Neo-revisionists] argued that they were the victims of a well-orchestrated 'conspiracy of silence' and that Argentina's 'official history' was a deliberate 'falsification' by the intellectuals of the 'liberal oligarchy'."^[18] The "set of historical villains that the Neo-revisionists identified behind the falsification of history was identical to that proposed by nacionalistas [Nationalists/Revisionists], with the same degree of grotesque simplification."^[18] The Revisionists had a "lack of interest in scholarly standards".^[19]

Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists, according to historian Michael Goebel, "academically they ended up in the same marginal position as nacionalistas."^[20] The "common feature of Neo-revisionist writers was their institutional marginality in the intellectual field". In fact, "the institutional marginality of nationalist intellectuals was greater in Argentina than elsewhere in Latin America."^[20]

Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". David Rock was just as clear: "Revisionism is not regarded as respectable by most historians, either in or outside Latin America. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject."

Important note: all sources used in my text above are books published in English which can easily be accessed on Google books by everyone here. In case anyone desires an exact or fuller quotation from those books, I will be happy to oblige.

Current word length: 1304 (limit: 1000); diff count: 2. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

The main claim of Argentine historical revisionism is that Bartolomé Mitre, who first outlined the historiography of Argentina, wrote a biased version of it. After his defeat, Rosas' political enemies began a campaign to erase or denigrate all the legacy of Rosas.^[1] Mitre fought himself in the Argentine Civil Wars,^[2] and his works on history reflected his political ideas.^[3] His view became mainstream. Revisionism surged one generation afterwards, by historians as Saldías and Quesada with modern historiographic techniques and without personal ties to the conflict or political influences.^[4] Mitre himself praised Saldías work: he wrote that "it should be criticised from a political point of view, but praised as a piece of history".^[4] In other words, his demonization of Rosas was merely political. The undisputed hegemony of Mitre's view ended in a very short time.^[4]

The 1920-1930 is known as the "Golden Era in Argentine historiography". There were both revisionists and liberal historians, and many of them were influenced by the political ideas of the time. Those revisionists weren't the first to praise Rosas, nor the first to mix history and politics; the controversy in their work was for promoting a new pantheon of national heroes.^[5] However, both of them declined the demonization of Rosas: revisionists praised him, and liberals chose a dispassionated view. In fact, although seeming superficially opposed, revisionist and liberal historians didn't had strong diferences beyond the selected national heroes.^[6]

Still, the revisionist works didn't reflect in academic institutions or society at large, which were conservative in this topic. One of such institutions was the National Academy of History of Argentina, founded by Mitre and a stauch defender of his views.^[7] "There was good reason to suspect that the real problem [of the Academy against revisionism] layed in the purity of a national pantheon rather than in scholarly criteria".^[8] The Academy included people who didn't work in historical research,^[7] and even rightwing and antidemocratic figures.^[9] Communism opposed revisionism as well,^[10] they became revisionists some time later, but maintaining their rejection of Rosas.^[11] Leftwing authors appeared during the 1960s proscription of peronism, but most of their works are essays;^[12] even those were reluctlant to accept Rosas, and praised instead the caudillos from other provinces.^[13]

President Juan Perón tried to avoid cultural controversies, and denied recognition to revisionism during his rule. Antiperonism used antirosism as a slogan, deeming Perón as "the second tyrant"; those comparisons were increased after the 1955 coup, that general Lonardi explicitly compared with the defeat of Rosas.^[14] Historical revisionism was banned as was peronism itself.^[15] As a result, revisionism was embraced by peronism, and the comparison of Rosas and Perón was embraced by peronists but under a positive light.^[16] The country had a long Dirty War up to 1983. Several revisionist historians, including Julio Irazusta, were appointed to the Academy of History between 1966 and 1973.^[17] Revisionism began to be included in highschool textbooks.^[18] Onganía was the first president to make positive comments of Rosas in public.^[19]

Rosas was repatriated by Menem, revisionism became the state's official version of history, losing the partisan undertones in the process.^[20] By then, many Argentines were ready to forget the hatreds of the distant XIX century.^[21]

Nowadays, revisionism (which is called that way simply by tradition) is acknowledged by academic institutions, by the state itself, and by the educative system. Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc. There are two institutions conducting historical studies of the Rosas rule, the "Juan Manuel de Rosas national institute", created in 1938 and part of the secretary of culture since 1997^[22] and the Manuel Dorrego national institute created in 2011. There's recognition by state, academics and society. If we don't focus in the 1930s, if we see the whole picture, as of 2013 "revisionism" is mainstream at best, an important and unavoidable view at worst. The claim that it is "fringe" simply does not stand. Remember, the point is not if revisionism should be accepted, but if it is accepted: it is.

Note as well that in the English-speaking world there isn't any sizeable body of historians working in the topic, only a handful of individual authors here and there. Most of them, of the divulgative type. John Lynch said it himself: "In the English speaking world, Rosas is largely forgotten" (page ix). It seems confirmed by all the bibliography cited so far (by all users, at all involved articles, in English or Spanish) that talks about the historiography of Rosas: one way or the other, they all talk about Argentine authors. No English-speaking author is worth a single comment in the context of those works, or played a significant role in the history of the way Rosas was perceived or studied. As a result, if there is or isn't consensus about something, it must be within the Argentine authors and institutions. WP:ENG points that "because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, where English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". Clearly the second part of the sentence is the one that prevails here: historians who work at academic institutions devoted to the topic at hand, checking the information at national archives and evaluated by a body of peers, are clearly far more relevant than historians that basically work in isolation and a continent away from the primary sources. Even more, don't forget the spirit of that policy: in generalist articles, with the same importance everywhere (such as sciences), it makes complete sense to prefer sources in English. In topics whose notability is largely located at a non-English country, the most relevant sources will likely be in another language. Small or outdated articles based in the limited bibliography in English can hardly be the result intended or desired by the policy.

Is revisionism reliable? It depends on the author, not the school. There is a difference between divulgative historians and real historians: real historians confirm each thing they say in primary sources, or share their doubts about the source's reliability with the reader; divulgative historians simply state "things happened this way because I say so", without such investigation. They aim to the casual readers, but per WP:SOURCE we should give priority to researcher historians, specially in disputes (I was not aware of this 4 years ago). And of course, if there is a nazi historian around there, we can reject him. But if the affiliation is specifically proved, not with a vague generalization "if he doesn't demonize Rosas then he's a nazi".

Remember WP:TRUTH as well. Opinions on the facts of history are opinions, not facts. The things done by Rosas are facts, if those things were justified or not are opinions, and each one should be treated accordingly.

The diference between revisionism and nonrevisionism isn't the demonization or hagiography of Rosas, that's just a grave oversimplification. Although Rosas is no longer demonized and many revisionist ideas have been accepted, not all of them were. For example, Caseros as part of a war with Brazil instead of a civil war of Rosas and Urquiza (see details here), or an intention of Rosas to expand the country to the old borders of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (see details here). Those should not be mentioned as confirmed facts, and I never did.

Considering the nature of this arbitration, all comments about historical facts should be checked in the books cited as references, not simply accepted on face value. The book I cited can be found here

Current word length: 996; diff count: 60.

Don't get confused: Lecen isn't concerned about revisionism, he's simply moving the goalposts. His goal was from the begining to get me out of the article to demonize its subject at will, revisionism is just a convenient excuse he found during the discussion. He also holds a grudge against me because I rejected his GAN 4 years ago, and he never dropped the stick.

Despite his proclaimed rejection of revisionism, he's not coherent with it. In fact, he promotes many revisionist views himself. I warned him here that in the Platine War discussion he was not defying the revisionist historians but the mainstream ones; he did not listen, and continued expanding the revisionist view into several other articles. He spreaded the alleged irredentism over Viceroyalty's territory as well. He keeps telling us that Odonnell isn't reliable, but then he should explain this and this. The first link took place before the big discussion began. Did he intend to work with an author he tells us so hard to reject? In a recent FAC I critizised the inclusion of Bartolomé Mitre and Argentina among the belligerents... the revisionist view. Note as well that, as of November 2012 (right before the discussion) the article cited no revisionist authors, and nowadays it cites only one (Smith), for the infancy period. The whole discussion about legitimacy of revisionism is pointless: even if it was decided to be unreliable, very little would actually change. As said, it's just a convenient excuse to request article ownership.

Lecen has been changing his request during the discussion. here and here he requested a blank check to write the article alone, without other's input. Here the problem seems to be about the statement "Rosas was a dictator..." in Wikipedia's voice, which I had changed. Here it is about the sources. Here is because he considered the discussion deadlocked.

Lecen accuses me and MarshalN20 of tag teaming, but without other proof than just some shared opinions. This is not new: back in 2010, during the Platine War discussion, he said the same thing about IANVS (again, with no proof). It seems that anyone who agrees with me is "my pawn" in Lecen's view. Here he said something similar about Wee Curry Monster (the "Justin" he cited above, username changed), showing his ease to accuse others without reason. He called us "Spanish American nationalists", which British WCM found amusing.

Here Lecen edited an article I had created half an hour before. Here he edited a technical wikiproject list I had created 10 days before (Lecen isn't part of Wikiproject Argentina). How did he got to those pages, if he's not following me? Here he opposed a FAC I had begun for the accuracy of a sentence about a passing-by comment about Brazil... that he had proposed himself at an earlier FAC (note that my comment at the Uruguayan War FAC reported by Lecen is labeled comment, not oppose). Here, at top, he "saves for later" the archiving of discussions that I had began. Clearly showing he holds grudges and won't drop the stick.

Before any actual discussion tooks place, he requested article ownership here and here, and clarified here and here: he wants to write the article alone and without needing to find consensus for edits that he knows will be controversial. Here and here he tries to describe me as an antisemite or nazi sympathizer. He posted provocative threads here and here, that I did not answer to stay cool, and he jumped to dispute resolution here (immediately closed here). He created a huge report here, talking about details from all the myriad angles he could conceive. He said "done" here and requested third opinion here, just 8 minutes afterwards. I began to answer: he made only a pair of replies here and here and jumped to Dispute Resolution again here, closed again here. Finally, some other users began to join the discussion. However, Lecen rejected all proposals and compromises (either from me or from other editors) that were not a flat-out support to his proposal as originally conceived. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. He tried to influence the discussions by trying to convince the users joining it at their talk pages, for example here, here and here. He had an edit war with MarshalN20, who rejected any authorship on a draft I wrote (which I indeed wrote alone): see here, here and here; Lecen justified that it was his own comment and should not be modified by anyone here. He resorted to tag bombing here, here and here, and later here. This led to full article protection here. When it expired, he began to actually work in the article, rewriting sections and adding images. Then I continued his work, editing some things; he reverted everything (both his and my edits) here. He said here that I had "butchered the article beyond recognition" (sic). Another edit war ensued (I did not take part in it), and the article was protected again here. For the following section, I proposed here to work on a talk page draft and and move it to article space when we were all satisfied: Lecen never made any comment.

Lecen claims the existence of a certain academic consensus, that would require us to ignore the authors that do not follow it. I pointed at Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#Arbitrary break 2 that, according to policies and guidelines, the existence of such a consensus must have a specific source that says so clearly and directly, it can not be decided by assesment of Wikipedia users. If there isn't such academic consensus then WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ensues. He never brought such source, and insisted here with his original claim.

Content discussions focused in the article rather than in general concepts have always been brief and scarce. Consider for example the subthreads here: the discussions never got beyond a second response.

I proved Lecen speaking falsely here, here and here ("Academic acceptance").

Current word length: 996; diff count: 35.

Personal defense

I behave a little goofy here and there, but nothing serious.

1. [48]: Awarded a diplomacy barnstar for peacekeeping work at the Falkland Islands article. I served as mediator during the successful development of the current "Sovereignty Dispute" section.
2. [49]: Erebedhel and I started on the wrong foot, but in the end turned out good friends. Before leaving, he left this barnstar to acknowledge my efforts against vandalism.

Lecen and obnoxious behavior

Blunt as this may be, interacting with Lecen is practically impossible due to his arrogance.

1. [50]: Mocks serious real life issue concerning Cambalachero.
2. [51]: Dentren & I ask for one better source => Lecen bolds parts of new source to make a point; I show gratitude => Lecen brings in another source just to rub it in; Dentren suggests adding sources in Spanish for another view => Lecen discredits sources in Spanish that contradict his position.
3. [52]: "Wee Curry Monster, you should change your bookstore of choice."
4. [53]: "I'd like to ask any of you if you have hte intention of actually improving this article or all you want is a change in the name?"
5. [54]: "if you want to be taken serious and be respected in here you should learn manners and hear what the people who actually contribute on these articles have to say"
6. [55]: "C'mon, man. Is this a joke? Why are you doing this? I will ignore you from now on, MBelgrano."

Lecen's behavior and Hispanophobia

Lecen takes a combative stance against Hispanics. This possibly explains Lecen's excessive hatred towards Juan Manuel de Rosas.

1. [56]: "we would certainly face Hispanic-American Wikipedians accusing us of 'Brazilian POV'."
2. [57]: "It doesn't help that they are Hispanic Americans and I am Portuguese American. You see, they still believe we are in the 18th century, and that there is an ongoing rivalry between Portugal and its colony Brazil and Spain and its countless American colonies."
3. [58]: "He must have somekind of crush on me. Poor fellow... I like chicks, not Peruvian stalkers."
4. [59]: "Now I see how different Brazil is from its Hispanic-American neighbors. Our culture is waaay different than theirs. I'll watch my mouth next time, I don't want to make the 'Defenders of Holy Che and Saint Evita' angry at me. Who knows what they would try to do with me? Force me watch the movie Evita (film) over and over? Oh God, no! No!"
5. [60]: Lecen's "joke" about Argentina.
6. [61]: "Since you're a Peruvian, your eagerness to change the name of this article [...] is merely because you see the name as it is favored by Brazilians only."
7. [62]: "There is and there was never any desire of Brazil, that is, PORTUGUESE American, to be part or united with Hispanic America."
8. [63]: Lecen insults Argentina: "Because there are people who are far more proud of their military history that comprised solely of killing themselves for decades, of having stood neutral at World War II while supporting Nazi German and of having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it. So much to be proud of."

Lecen's behavior and WP:DIVA

Lecen always uses his FA articles as "weapons", and constantly threatens to "retire".

1. [64]: FA brag and "done for good" threat
2. [65]: "Now I see that I'm wasting time. Goodbye."
3. [66]: Another user, bothered by Lecen, writes: "Since you brought up the FA issue repeatedly in this discussion as some sort of proof: it only shows how pathetic the FA process really is."
4. [67]: Again, the FA brag.
5. [68]: Inflated ego. Writes: "It seems that there are more people around who could contribute more than I do (I'm being ironic)."
6. [69], [70], [71]: Threatens to leave, comes back, threatens to leave again. Lecen never actually retired.

Lecen's behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Lecen got blocked for "battleground mentality" in January 2012 ([72]). Since then, his edits show a continuation of this misbehavior.

1. [73]: Attempts sabotaging GA nomination for Jose de San Martin (worked on by Cambalachero). Lecen cynically writes: "Well, the article should be at most B, certainly not a GA, unless the standards are very low nowadays. You shouldn't pass the article, it has to be improved a lot until it is worth the GA label."
2. [74], [75]: Lecen writes at Wikiprojects (Argentina & Mil.Hist.) a "prepare for combat" statement against Cambalachero at the Juan Manuel de Rosas article.
3. [76]: "Trust me, in this battlefield called Wikipedia that means a lot."
4. [77]: DrKiernan writes (About Lecen and his "clique"): "The battleground mentality is entrenched [...] it doesn't matter what you say or do at those articles - you will still be misinterpreted, misrepresented, hated and vilified, because even attempts to find a middle ground or help are immediately attacked unless you are a part of the favored clique."
5. [78]: After "losing" move request (January 2012), Lecen returns (July 2012) and vengefully writes: "As I feared, this article has been left to dust and it's still awful. What a pity."
6. [79]: Disturbing. Dondegroovy ends up writing (About Lecen): "You're essentially asking me to censor another user's opinion, and I won't do that."

Lecen's behavior and Group tactics to push POV

Editors have noted that Lecen and his friends collaborate on matters beyond article development. They create a fictional consensus to "win" move requests, avoid talk page discussions, take WP:OWN attitudes, and justify their actions. The Juan Manuel de Rosas article is part of it.

1. [80] and [81] Around April 2012, Lecen sent a series of messages to enroll users into his Wikiproject. His true intentions are revealed in two of these several messages: "That's more felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor [...]. We're utterly alone and that's what we want to change." and "No one to aid with articles' review, suggestions, talk pages disputes, absolutely nothing. It gets worse when we find ourselves in unnecessary discussions with other editors."
2. [82]. I took note of this early. Lecen then replied: "Yes, you should do something before we, mighty and evil Brazilians, conquer Wikipedia to force our Brazilian POV."
3. [83] Surtsicna (May 2012): "I have been editing Wikipedia for a few years now and I have seen a lot. However, I have never encountered a clique users who simply refuse to discuss."
4. [84] Silver seren: "It seems like there is some sort of clique thing going on here."

Current word length: 1045; diff count: 0.

I will not provide a long list of fancy sources to discuss, well, the sources used in Juan Manuel de Rosas (and other related articles). Let's just go straight to the point (to save everyone's time, or whatever is left that can be saved), and discuss the nature of the sources and sourcing.

Censorship of sources

The essential issue at hand here is censorship. What kind of censorship is right? I do not think sources should be censored based on the personal opinion of the authors. The value of the source is in the information or argument it provides. Yes, it is important to establish the reliability of sources, but reliability is not determined by political partisanship.

That being said, I am not arguing that we should ignore the background of the authors. It is important to present this information to the readers (if it is relevant in the context of the article), particularly if we are going to use an opinion from the author (rather than a fact).

I simply cannot agree with the idea that any kind of censorship is good, especially in a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Sources: Distinguishing Facts and Opinions

Fact: This month is April.

Opinion: This month of April is too boring.

An important point here is to distinguish opinions from facts. A more direct example:

In an earlier revision of Juan Manuel de Rosas, John Lynch is used to discuss Rosas' role as a Miquelet: "In 1807 during the second British invasion, Rosas served in the Caballería de los Migueletes [Cavalry of the Migueletes], but he was probably absent from the campaign itself because of illness." -- direct quote from John Lynch is used in the article).

That looks fine, except for the fact that Rosas fought in the Battle of Miserere, and that Santiago de Liniers even wanted to take him to Europe in order for him to become an officer.

Lynch's statement is more of an opinion (writing "probably absent") rather than an assertion. Basically, Lynch doesn't know what Rosas did during the campaign. Should Lynch's opinion be included? I say yes, but it should be written as "According to historian John Lynch..."

Passing Lynch's opinion as a fact, rather than an opinion, hides the facts about Liniers and Rosas' relationship.

Opinions of historians as sources

Historians are reliable sources for historical subjects, yes, but they are not the holders of the truth (or the owners of history).

I once asked my history professor about how historians dealt with controversial figures. I do not remember his exact his response, but he told me something along the lines of:

"Let me answer your question with an example. Historian Frederick Pike wrote three different biographies of Victor Raul Haya de la Torre. All of them have a different perspective about Haya de la Torre, and it shows both the controversial nature of the subject (Haya) as well as Pike's personal development (changes in point of view)."

Of course, my professor's tone was probably better than what I have written, but it had a deep impact on me. I hope that I have managed to share this impact with the rest of you.

English sources

Something that surprises me is the imposition of English sources over Spanish sources. Yes, sources in English are important (mainly to verify material, given that this is the English Wikipedia), but no reason exists to discredit Spanish authors simply because of their language or political leanings.

Are we to assume that English authors do not have political leanings? Do these English authors not come from a culture and society that is quick to call a "dictator" (or "dictatorship") everyone and everything that is against their perception of democracy?

Taking a look at some articles (Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Joseph Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek), which are part of the "traditional" dictator's club in the English world, most of these folks are barely labeled dictators. In the case of Castro, any claims of "dictator" and "dictatorship" is attributed to his opponents. Juan Manuel de Rosas was also labeled as a dictator by his opponents, during his lifetime and afterwards.

Why should Juan Manuel de Rosas be demonized as a brutal, terrorist, dictator?

Again, my view is not of censorship. I believe that this "Anti-Rosist" point of view has its merits, and should certainly be presented in the article. However, I would not go to the extent of having this all be placed as the only truth about Rosas.

Revisionism, discussing the term

Another point that troubles me is the term "revisionism". The title, as used in this case, is not within the context of the traditional sense of the word.

The context of the traditional term "revisionist" is itself also convoluted, with Historical revisionism seen in positive light as history's natural self-correction, and negationism seen as the black sheep of the family (and rightfully so).

Argentine revisionism is its own concept, somewhat related to the two above (negationism and positive revisionism). It would be naïve to think that no Argentine revisionist is a negationist, but it also falls on the extreme to think that all Argentine revisionists are negationists.

Cherrypicking sources

Cherry picking (fallacy). Cherrypicking terms, such as "dictator", in order to create an abstract consensus is nothing more than WP:OR.

Cherrypicking the term "dictator" for Fidel Castro ([85]) gives me 47,800 Google Books hits. Does that mean that I should go into the article of Fidel Castro and change everything in it to label him as such on the encyclopedia's own voice?

Sourcing Juan Manuel de Rosas

Some people see Malcolm X as a hero, others see him as a villain. Some people like hot dogs, others like hamburgers. Some people think that the Pisco Sour was invented in Chile, others think it was invented in Peru. That's how history works; it's a field of intense disputes due to the conflicting nature of human views and opinions.

When dealing with opinions or different points of views, the optimal solution is to present all of them in the articles. Due weight is certainly important, but it does not mean that the other position is not going to get mentioned.

I like the structure of the Malcolm X article (controversial figure), and think it would be good for Juan Manuel de Rosas. At least something along those lines, but not exactly the same, with sources that reflect the different perspective on controversial individuals.

Current word length: 355; diff count: 2.

Defence of Rosas is not a fringe view

I beg to differ with Lecen in his statement that Revisionismo is a fringe view. Most countries histories a primarily written by peopel from that country. As suchthe Argentine historiographic tradition of Revisionismo is fully legitimate. Attempt be Lecen to discredit it by linking it to the Far-right is nonsence. It would be like discredit Marxism because it was adopted by the Soviet Union. Regarding the sources used by Lecen the like books of David Rock (historian) they represent legitimate historiophic current that does not own the truth and as part of historiographic struggle themselves can not use to proof another current wrong. Moreover these sources does not provide hard proofs but points of view of the authors or people cited by the authors. The historiographic traditions that these authors represent could themselves be scrutinized.

I fully agree with Cambalachero's statement that "revisionism (which is called that way simply by tradition) is acknowledged by academic institutions, by the state itself, and by the educative system. Rosas is accepted as a national hero, with a national day, his face in currency banknotes, a monument, etc." and would like to add that history will perhaps be a science full of disputes and it would be ridiculous to confer the ultimate word to Anglo-Saxon historians and published who would very much like to regard themselves as objective and free of historiographic tradition.

While I oppose the above-mentioned statements of Lecen I would like to congratulate him for the clarity of his exposition.

Tag-team allegation

I find it hard to use this [86], [87] as evidence of a the existence of a tag-team. The Paraguayan War and John VI of Portugal articles are of the concern of anyone who whish to participate in them. If Cambalachero and Marshal or anyone sees an editor they think might be intruducing bias into article these users are free to follow the activity of that user, I have done so myself. From Marshals activity in the controversial War of the Pacific article and Pisco Sour articles I regard him as one of the best users to handle controversy and heat active in South American topics. Dentren | ^Talk 11:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 488; diff count: 1.

Argentine revisionism and the mainstream

Revisionismo is depicted in mainstream English-language sources as a historiography that has a political bias and basis, rather than historical underpinnings. It is neither accepted, or considered as objective, even among Argentine historians. There is a body of English-language work that addresses Argentine revisionism, and committee members will easily find examples such as Schumay's The Invention of Argentina (see ch. 9–10); Hedges' Argentina: A Modern History (pp. 48–49); Taylor's Eva Perón (pp. 29–31); Dolkart in Deutsch and Dolkhart's The Argentine Right: Its History and Intellectual Origins 1910 to the Present (pp. 76–77); etc. that depict mainstream scholarship's position on both revisionism and its ties to political movements. Revisionist claims are indeed discussed, and the mainstream is always reexamining itself, but that does not bring revisionist viewpoints, in any way, into becoming the mainstream consensus. Revisionists are sometimes cited for material that shows the thrust of revisionism itself and its claims, but hardly for anything else. As I attempted to explain on the Rosas article talk, revisionist claims might warrant a footnote or section about revisionist views (backed by appropriate mainstream citations), but revisionist views and sources should not be presented or reflected in articles as if the revisionist view is the mainstream.

Intransigent PoV

In the case at hand, instead of removing the viewpoint, the reaction has been to defend revisionism and reinforce a PoV which is at odds with the mainstream. The instances of removing any mention of Rosas being a dictator were simply the most blatant step in that direction (the sort of PoV-pushing behavior which rendered the Wikipedia articles at odds with other English-language encyclopedia articles on the subject matter). Revisionism is inherently non-mainstream and fringe (else such theories and expositions would be deemed mainstream). At times, revisionist views may even garner enough acceptance within the broader scholarship (something which has not occurred with revisionismo) to be a notable alternative, at which point they become "minority" constructs. Policy requires that articles summarize and reflect the mainstream. Fringe and revisionist theories/views exist in many subjects; that does not mean that editors can push those views over mainstream scholarship or portray them as mainstream. Lacking this policy imperative, editors could slant articles to reflect pro-eugenics viewpoints, politically based arguments, positions on things like climate change framed by special interest groups, creationist narratives in articles on evolution, etc. ad infinitum. Editors do constantly (and tiresomely) attempt this, even after being repeatedly warned or corrected. Some are relentless in incrementally reinserting PoV over weeks and months and, sadly, get by with it, especially in lower profile articles that lack a large and diverse pool of editors. I and other editors tend to give up in the face of intransigent PoV pushers. While Wikipedia is not supposed to be a backdoor to advance fringe and politically based claims and viewpoints, there are not enough hours in the day for most of us to take on every case like this. • Astynax ^talk 07:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 436; diff count: 0.

Is Revisionismo fringe?

Revisionismo, more often than not, serves political purposes and is not objective. However, it has become very popular, even among scholars. Most of its points are not generally agreed upon, but it is not an obscure current, and all of its arguments and defenders are not extreme. Mentioning its arguments in WP would more likely serve the purpose of reflecting historiographical debate than of abusing the encyclopedia to promote a fringe theory.

Practical consequences

Considering the mechanics of the WP editing process, I don't think rejecting revisionsimo is the way to deal with this. Debates would be endless, as passionate supporters of revisionismo will (correctly) bring up sources from authors with credentials. If other editors succeed in rejecting those views on the basis of mainstream material and objective facts, they will be faced over and over again with the same difficult debates.

Even though the reliability of revisionist sources is disputed, I would have them included due to those practical consequences. In other words, the extension in which the arguments appear in noteworthy publications should be a more-important criterion than other objectiveness proxies such as third-party assessments of the sources. I realize that this argument could be used to defend the inclusion of any sufficiently-extended fringe theory, but at some point there is a line to draw, and I consider revisionismo (or at least many of its claims) to fall within the side of inclusion.

Caring for objectiveness

However, I don't believe that revisionist sources are reliable enough for us to present their arguments in WP's voice or to displace mainstream views. I can sympathize with "non-revisionist" editors who faced such practices. In my opinion, the way to deal with these noteworthy yet disputed theories is to present them alongside majority views, saying that they belong to a certain historiographical current. When one of their claims is widespread but doubtful, it is often more useful to offer a proper refutation in the article, than to delete the claim. This will produce longer content, but I think it is the only way to create informative WP:NPOV articles with the WP process. Biased editors will find their position in the article, leading to less reverts and confrontations. As a secondary advantage, readers will be offered answers to doubtful widespread theories.

Besides, it would be important to make it very clear, to readers, that these kinds of subjects are disputed and thus they should take the WP entry with a pinch of salt. Due to the editing problems described by Astynax above, some entries in WP are spreading propaganda. But readers trust them, unaware of how poorly the "kitchen" is managed. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 646 (limit: 500); diff count: 1. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Unsupportable allegations of English-language bias

<pretty much total revision of previous comments, as explained below, earlier versions in history>

My involvement with this article is more or less limited to the Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas#RfC: Use of Nationalist/Revisionist sources on Juan Manuel de Rosas. In that section, Lecen repeatedly stresses that the independent reliable sources indicate that the subject is a dictator. I raised several points in that section arguing against the emphasis of the term, none of which were to my eyes particularly well responded to by Lecen or others. Instead, just about the only responses received were quotes indicating that the word is used in reliable reference books. I even found the one article on the subject on Highbream Research, written by the recent expert Lynch, which gives one paragraph of roughly 14 to the subject. However, to the best of my knowledge, at no point did I see clear evidence that the term "dictator" was used by sources other than Lynch in such a pronounced and obvious way that the word had to be used in the article. You will also find in that section clear and obvious statements by Lecem, such as this one in which Lecen clearly states "every single book in English says that he was a brutal dictator," although the few sources he produces do not themselves necessarily use those terms or clearly support that exact statement. Such statements tend to be rather common. Yes, Lynch is just about the only source in English in recent years which extensively deals with Rosas as the major topic, which makes him, by default, the source most likely to be used by other English langauge works, whether he in fact is the best and most reliable or not. However, there is another matter regarding how Rosas compares to others, which is also discussed in that section and to the best of my knowledge not particularly well dealt with.

It has been said that in recent years there is a "revision" of Rojas. To my eyes, a more accurate term might be "reevaluation from the view of people sufficiently removed to perhaps be more neutral than the people of the time," because, honestly, that is more or less what historians are supposed to try to do. This might well include coming to a conclusion that the contemporary sources who were under the heel of a dictator painted him as being, basically, excessively criticized as some form of Satan incarnate, which, honestly, is far from unusual when dealing with matters of history.

As I indicated in that discussion, to my eyes, the term "dictator" conveys strongly emotional impressions which are more or less automatic, and that those impressions do not necessarily help editors new to the subject clearly see the facts behind the emotion. On that basis, despite the word being used enough to produce the references produced from Lynch and others, I did and still do think that in this circumstance the apparent insistence of Lecen on the use of a clearly inflammatory term when the alternative of a clearer, more substantive option exists, struck me then and still strikes me as being possible evidence of POV.

Note: Yes, I have revised this comment repeatedly. I regret to say that I based the first drafts on notes I had left in my computer, and that in those notes I also got some of the statements of others wrong. However, I beleive in substance the comments here agree with those of earlier revisions. I also believe it not unreasonable for me to point out that at User talk:John Carter/Archives/2013/February#Juan Manuel de Rosas I received a clear indication that in fact one editor had not only not actually read what I had written, but seemed to jump to conclusions about my own statements which were and still are to my eyes patently absurd, and unfortunately those comments did very definitely prejudice me regarding the rationality of the editor who made them. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a confusion by all parties here, that this is a forum that considers both user behaviour and content. The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct. In this regard, I see User:Lecen as the main problem. The personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF lead to poisonous discussions. An example [88] his perception that I'm a friend of any party or a "Spanish American nationalists" is so far from reality as to be laughable but does indicate the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality he brings to any discussion. My only real interaction with Lecen was on the Paraguayan War article, this is largely known in the English speaking world as the War of the Triple Alliance. For questioning why the article was moved to this strange name Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#War of the Triple Alliance v Paraguayan War, I received several personal attacks from Lecen and I really don't understand why. At the moment we have the bizarre situation where the Paraguayan War article is at a name that is largely hit via the redirect War of the Triple Alliance from a fringe name not often used in English.

The reality, a rather gruff Glaswegian, who has butted heads more times with User:Cambalachero and User:MarshalN20 than I care to count but we've always managed to keep things civil and focused on content.

I would, however, council that as far as content goes there needs to be some caution here. Anyone with an interest in the history of South America would acknowledge a tendency toward revisionism, historical figures can be alternatively denounced and praised in relation to the politics of certain nationalist movements. Rosas being a case in point, following his downfall there was a movement to downplay his legacy and emphasise the brutality of his regime. Since WW2 and the rise of Peronism the opposite has occurred, with his patriotism praised and the brutality of his regime played down. This is not a subject area where a WP:NPOV is easily achieved and I would suggest that any remedy needs to emphasise consensus building, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CIVIL.

User:Lecen's track record in producing FA class articles is great but if he can't interact with other users his net contribution to the project is not positive. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]