Talk:Eva Perón

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Good articles Eva Perón (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review Eva Perón has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics.

If you would like to participate, you can improve Eva Perón, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Eva Perón as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] HEADS-UP TO FELLOW EDITORS!

A full TWO SECTIONS of this article was recently deleted for no reason. I hope that everyone else who keeps an eye on this article will watch out for these things. I have this article on my Watchlist, but somehow I missed it. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 07:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

  1. Well written?: Pass
  2. Factually accurate?: Ok
  3. Broad in its coverage?: Pass
  4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
  5. Stable?: Ok
  6. Images?: Fail. The Time magazine covers, the movie poster (Pattiluponeevita.jpg), the covers of the books and Evaperoncoin.jpg do not have a proper fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale

I'll put this article on hold for 7 days. Nat91 19:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that appropriate fair use rationales were not available. I have added the rationales now. Thank you. Andrew Parodi 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Passed GA. In my opinion, this is a potential FAC - it just needs some adjustments. Good work! Nat91 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This is great news. Thank you. I agree that it still needs work. Please give any advice you have.
I'm very happy to see this get to the Good Article status. I'd like to take it to the next level. The obvious thing that comes to mind is that more references are needed. The article relies too heavily on the Fraser/Navarro book. I need to get other references in there during the beginning portion of the article.
Please list any other suggestions. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Menem inclusion, too trivial?

I just inserted a paragraph about Carlos Menem naming his daughter after Evita. I also noted that the daughter fulfilled the role of ceremonial first lady after Menem's divorce from the mother. On one hand, this is a bit trivial, on the other hand I think it's interesting because it shows that Evita's influence in Argentine politics is still evident. I inserted this paragraph into the "Legacy: In Argentina" section. Any thoughts? (I almost noted that Zulema was occasionally referred to as "Zulemita" and had expressed a desire to be like Evita. But I decided against that.) Andrew Parodi 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is too trivial. I suggest a Biography Peer-review (WP:WPBIO) to get more suggestions about what it needs for FAC. Also, as I mentioned before, a copy-edit is necessary for prose and unimportant details. Hope to see it for FAC soon! Nat91 04:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take it out. I thought that on one hand it is interesting that the president's daughter was named after Evita, and that daughter eventually filled the same ceremonial role Evita had served. It's a bit eerie, actally. But then again, on the scale of her life it's not that important, probably. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

I removed the sentence describing her alleged visit to Switzerland during the European Tour; the allegations of trafficking Nazi gold are made elsewhere in the article and in far greater detail. I also felt the sentence was leading, implying that some financial impropriety had taken place at Evita's instigation during an alleged stopover in Switzerland. This theory, which is not considered particularly credible in any case, is, as I say, dealt with elsewhere. Gboleyn 15:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for removing it. Most of all, it was just poorly written. It was also uncited. And, as you said, it was dealt with elsewhere. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinserting Time magazine cover in European tour section

An editor had replaced the Time magazine cover with a picture of Evita with the Pope. I reinserted the Time magazine cover for many reasons. First, it is a historically important cover because it was the first time in the magazine's history that a South American first lady had appeared on the cover; to this date, Evita remains the only South American first lady to have done so. Second, the cover story is about the European tour and therefore is directly related to the article section on the tour. The magazine cover and story is directly discussed in the section. Third, the magazine is a good example of a common complaint during the Peron era: censorship of the press; Time magazine was banned from the country for several months for this publication because it was the first time any media had mentioned Evita had been born out of wedlock. Fourth, I believe it's a better picture. The picture with the Pope is grainy, black and white, and Evita is looking down and kissing a Catholic icon of some sort. The Time magazine image is color, with Evita's face looking right out at you, and the logo "Time" is instantly recognizeable, whereas no one these days (aside from the most staunch Catholic) is likely to recognize the Pope that Evita met with during her tour. Andrew Parodi 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A Catholic icon of some sort? The caption states it is the Pope. He sure looks like a pope. Why do you have to be so derogatory when you don't agree? I would rather see a grainy, black and white photo that is real than a colored caricature with a yellow star behind it. Foolscape 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: When I used the term "Catholic icon," I was referring to the object in the Pope's hand, not the Pope himself. The term "icon" originated to refer to religious images; please see the Wikipedia article Icon. I did not in any way make any derogatory reference to the Pope himself. Andrew Parodi 11:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
However, the magazine cover has a great disadvantage: it's "fair use" while the other is an image with a real free license. Fair use must be saved only for cases when no free image can be obtained, and Eva Peron (with such a huge gallery of photos to choose from at Commons) is clearly not the case. With so many photos to choose at your leisure, using "fair use" can not be justified enough.
Is it so important that she has appeared at the cover of a magazine? Very well: mention it. With text. It's not needed to actually provide the cover if it can't be done with a real free license. --Perón 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
This article was approved for Good Article status with that magazine cover exactly where it is. Fair Use is fine if the rationale fits. That cover is an historic cover; the first time a South American first lady was depicted on the cover; the first magazine to publish that Eva Peron was born out of wedlock; the issue that led to Time being banned from Argentina for a period of time. My understanding is that Fair Use images of magazine covers are just fine as long as the corresponding text directly correlates with the Fair Use magazine image. Andrew Parodi 08:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use . I won’t bore everyone else by pasting it all here. But the part that concerns you is: “Wikipedia permits the 'fair use' of content only under very restricted circumstances where the image or content not only meets the legal tests for fair use but is also, in essence, not repeatable, i.e. it would not be possible to replace the image or content with an equivalent free image.”

The Times cover located at http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101470714,00.html is not the only one you stole (The Perons in 1951 came from the same site which you didn’t even bother to tag properly). How can you claim fair use when those images were on that web site for sale. If you had continued down the page of the site where you stole the pictures you would have noticed it said: Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. That sort of says it all.

There are, as “Peron” stated, plenty of free images in the commons. The photo of Eva Peron and the pope is free use and is appropriate to this portion of the article. The Times cover photo is not. Since you are obviously are new to the rules, you should go back and read them and use them with good faith.

As far as the approval for good article is concerned, you have a short memory. I quote: “# Images?: Fail. The Time magazine covers, the movie poster (Pattiluponeevita.jpg), the covers of the books and Evaperoncoin.jpg do not have a proper fair use rationale. See Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale You can argue all you want but you should use good faith and follow the rules.Foolscape 18:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern:
As I mentioned below, the status of the various pictures on this article was indeed addressed in the Good Article approval process, however what was addressed was that the various images did not have proper Fair Use rationales attached to them. In response, I quickly and kindly provided those rationales. I was not, however, made aware that the images were not appropriate in and of themselves. Had I been made aware of that, I would have removed them immediately, just as I provided fair use rationales immediately.
I think it is understandable that I would assume that the version of the article that was granted "Good Article" status is okay, and that I would question the judgment of a user with a history of harassing me. (It's very easy to harass another while one is hiding anonymously behind a username.) I don't know what I ever did to make Foolsccape so angry with me, and frankly I'm not interested in knowing. I just wish someone, perhaps an administor, could put an end to this hostility. Andrew Parodi 10:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


As a photo news editor, I can tell you with some authority that the use of a magazine cover is perfectly legal and acceptable. You would not be able to use the lone image employed on the magazine's cover without the photographer's permission. However, use of the actual magazine cover is fine.

Cheers,

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goatboy95 (talk • contribs).

"Legal and acceptable" as in "fair use"? --Fsotrain09 04:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Lisa Simpson image

The user who refers to him/herself as "Perón" has decided that the Lisa Simpson image cannot be used on this page, that it qualifies for Fair Use on the page about the episode but not here. I read the fair use rationale, and it says that it is "fair use" when it is used to illustrate discussion of the image and episode, which is what happens on this page about Eva Peron.

I have absolutely no interest in arguing about this. I will not be drawn into an argument or debate here. I just would appreciate the thoughts of people other than "Peron". Thanks.

Lisa Simpson as Eva Peron

Andrew Parodi 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't the case. This article isn't about the Simpsons, it's about a politician, the use of copyrighted images from the simpsons is not "fair" here. The wikiproject gives an example: "the use of an image of Mickey Mouse could be "fair" in an article on the character himself, but the use of it on an article about mice in general would probably not be "fair"."
Fair use does not apply everywhere, it is not universal: an image wich is "fair use" in a given context is not so at another... and this one is almost the perfect example. --Perón 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Perón, I'll start off by thanking you for at the very least addressing me with some respect, kindness, and not assuming bad faith on my part. Thank you for that. Now, to the topic of the picture of Lisa Simpson, I want to say that first of all I was not the person to upload that picture to Wikipedia. Someone else uploaded that picture to Wikipedia, later, I linked the picture to this page.
In looking at the tag to that picture, I see that it contains the following guideline for usage:
"to illustrate the work or product being discussed"
The tag does not explicitly say that the image is only allowed on a page solely devoted to discussion of what is depicted in the image. (Note, the image of Lisa Simpson is used on other pages not specifically devoted to the episode "The President Wore Pearls".) It says only that it is to illustrate the work or product being discussed. To my understanding, to my thinking (whether correct or not), this meant that the image was okay in the section of the Eva Peron article where "the work or product (is) being discussed." I included the image in the section of the article that talks about Eva Peron's depiction in popular culture, and in particular I included the image directly across from the paragraph that directly discussed the "work or product". To my understanding, having done this was completely acceptable. Again, I will note that this article passed the "Good Article" process with this image exactly where it was. What was I to make of this? Well, what I made of it was that my assumption was correct; the image was fine where it was; I had interpreted the tag correctly.
If indeed I misinterpreted the tag, could it be noted that it was a "good faith" misinterpretation, not some devious plot on my part to undermine Wikipedia and open Wikipedia to legal action. If my intention were to undermine Wikipedia, there are better ways to attempt that than to contribute heavily to an article about an historical Argetine first lady. In "Good Faith," thank you. Andrew Parodi 10:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see my comments in the previous section re Time mag covers. I believe those comments apply here also. You are way too free and easy with trying to use "fair use" whenever you feel like it and don't want to spend the time for serious research. Foolscape 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There's an important difference between both. The magazine cover may be an acceptable fair use if it was a magazine printed decades ago and then forgotten (wich it isn't, thanks Foolscape), because it involves Evita herself. As such, it can be accepted here, but only until real free images are available (wich is what already happens), and then it should be replaced.
Lisa Simpson is not the case. The real Evita has nothing to do with it. If Evita was a character from a cheap musical comedy, then that episode could be considered a "derivative work", but she isn't.
And, by the way, a "good article" status does not mean that the article should be locked and unmodified. Even more, the issue here is not with the article itself, but with the images in it, wich have specific rules and regulations. --Perón 13:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is currently categorized in the Musical theatre characters category. In the musical "Evita", Eva Peron herself is indeed a character. The image of Lisa Simpson is of her dressed in the style of Eva Peron, and as mentioned in the reference to the cartoon, the episode ends with mentioning Eva Peron by name.
I have never stated, nor have I meant to imply, that because this article passed Good Article qualifications it is locked and cannot be modified. I see many places where it can be improved. But the improvements I have in mind are with regard to adding things, not taking away things that were present when the article was given Good Article status. Andrew Parodi 14:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that detail I missed. I removed that category: Evita is certainly not a character from a musical comedy. If that character is important enough, perhaps an article can be made about the character from that comedy, and place it in that category... but this article is about a real woman named Maria Eva Duarte de Peron. Reality, not fiction. It would be also a mistake if Julius Caesar was categozed as "characters from Asterix the Gaul". --Perón 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I myself am not the one who inserted Eva Peron into that category. I agree that the historical woman is not a character in a musical production. She is the basis for a character; there is a difference between Eva Peron/Evita and "Evita". However, I note that at least within this category there are other literal historical figures who are listed as "musical theater characters", such as Che Guevara and Jesus. Therefore, within the context of that category, it may not be correct that you have removed Eva Peron. For example, her husband, Juan Peron, remains in that category. In other words, the inclusion of Eva Peron in that category is not out of character for that category; maybe the category itself needs to be revised. Andrew Parodi 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to take it personal. I didn't remove her from the category to go against you, I did it because it was a wrong category for the article to be placed in. And yes, if other historical people are categorized as if they were fictional "characters" because of fictional works that make references to them, yes, those others must be corrected as well. --Perón 13:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Coins

The image of the coins is also misusing the fair use policy. Please read the legal notice from the webpage you stole this image from.

http://worldcoingallery.com/legal.html It strictly prohibits any copying of any of their web page.

Poster- Evita (Photo- Patti LuPone)

Again, at the bottom of the web site where you stole this photo (which is for sale) it states: “© 1996-2001 Frames Direct Inc, All Rights Reserved

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed in any form.” http://www.imageexchange.com/htm/copyright.htm

If you continue to bastardize the wiki fair use policy for your own use no one else will ever be able to upload true fair use images. Even worse, Wiki or you could get in to legal issues, which hurts all editors. Cease and desist. Foolscape 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


To whom it may concern:

I have uploaded a different picture of the Eva Peron coin. As can be seen, I have uploaded it from a site that expressly states that use is fine as long as the site is credited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Argevita2pr.jpg

With regard to the photo of Patti Lupone, I have just sent an email to Patti LuPone herself requesting that we be granted the ability to use an image off of her website; http://www.pattilupone.net/ . Andrew Parodi 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration with Foolscape

Foolscape has continually approached me with an attacking attitude. This attitude is present on the page about Bradley Nowell as well. I suppose this is where Foolscape became aware of me. On that page, Foolscape removed an image that I placed on the page, despite the fact that it was properly tagged. The image was of Bradley Nowell as a child. Foolscape accused me of uploading an inappropriate picture, despite the fact that the picture has been published in Sublime products.

Foolscape, apparently, just does not like me personally and has a history of assuming bad intentions on my part. I think it is entirely inappropriate for Foolscape to say that I "stole" images used on this page and use them "for my own use." This is obviously not the case. If I have indeed made mistakes, it is in the context of attempting to help create an article for others to read about Eva Peron -- an article for which I receive absolutely NO compensation, monetarily or otherwise. The only compensation I received was the knowledge that I was helping others find more information about the subject.

There is a general guideline on Wikipedia that you should "assume good faith." I wish someone could explain this to Foolscape. If I did indeed make some mistakes about these uploaded images, could it also be taken into account that I am the main editor to work on this article that has now been declared a "Good Article" and that this page received that status with the images exactly as they are? In point of fact, the status of the images was brought up and addressed by the editor who allowed the article to pass the "Good Article" status. I made the adjustments the editor suggested. If I did indeed make mistakes, they were "good faith" mistakes. I think it is entirely uncalled for that Foolscape suggests that I "stole" these images and that I use them for my own purposes. Andrew Parodi 09:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks from Foolscape

1. In the section Peron, how she lost her virginity Foolscape writes to me: "My, my, I didn't know "editors" lowered themselves to such childish talk and behavior Mr. Parodi." Implying that I am not a real editor, and referring to me as "childish."

2. In this section [1], Foolscape accuses me of "stealing" images, which is not accurate. At worst, I may've misunderstood the correct application of fair use standards. It is unfair to accuse me of committing a crime. This is a serious personal attack on my character. Foolscape also uses the vulgar term "bastardize" to refer to my use of images.

3. In the section called Time magazine cover in European tour section, Foolscape begins by misunderstanding my usage of the term Catholic icon and thus mistakes my usage, thinking that I am referring to the Pope as a "Catholic Icon," when in reality I, a person who was baptised Catholic, received First Holy Communion, attended a private Catholic school, and at one point wanted to be a priest, was referring to the object in the Pope's hand as a "Catholic icon"; apparently Foolscape did not know that "icon" is a word that originated to refer to images of Christ or religious items. The Pope is holding a Catholic icon in his hand, which Evita is kissing. (Either that, or the Pope is holding the Eucharist in his hand. The image is too small to be sure.) This misunderstanding is obviously a result of Foolscape's unwillingness to assume good faith with me, jump to conclusions, and attack me. Foolscape doesn't realize that he/she does not understand the original meaning of the word "icon," instead he/she refers to my correct usage of the term as "derogatory." Also, in this section, Foolscape again accuses me of committing theft.

Other instances of Foolscape's harassing attitude toward me can be found in various places on this Talk Page, such as the section about Noam Chomsky.

Andrew Parodi 10:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if images are placed for sale at some site, or are requested not to be reproduced, and their are included here under the "fair use" status, that's a crime. Good faith means we won't consider you a criminal trying to steal the rights of the images or sabotage Wikipedia, but instead a good-intended citizen who made a crime without knowing it was a crime. But yet... the action itself remains criminal anyway, and even if you are not "blamed", it has to be stopped. What happens if a cop finds an 8 years old boy making grafitis on a wall? The boy may not be to blame, he may think it's just a joke, so the cop will asume good faith and won't take him to prison or something else. But... will he let him continue doing that? --Perón 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Your analogy is really over the line here. There is no relation to what I have done and graffiti on a wall somewhere. That is absolutely outrageous.
I also want it to be understood that the image of Patti LuPone was taken from a website that sells POSTERS of that image. That image itself was not for sale. That website sells lifesized POSTERS, not little, low resolution images.
It is completely outrageous and inexcuseable that you and Foolscape are so callously accusing me of theft. I resent that, and if you continue to make this allegation then I will seek legal action against you for defamation of character. I am going to go get a Wikipedia administrator to intervene on this issue. I am at the end of my rope with both of you.
Andrew Parodi 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The controversial picture is found here:

http://www.imageexchange.com/posters/theater/4035.shtml

The website in question does not sell this picture, but the poster. In other words, it is highly likely that this website owner does not him/herself even own the copyright to the image in the poster. Most likely, this website owner only owns the COPIES of the posters that he/she retains in their stock. Therefore, it is COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS that I am being accused of theft. Andrew Parodi 03:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please slow down, have a deep breath, and read again what I posted? We are not accusing you of being a criminal. We are pointing that the action may be against the law, and so it can be a potencial problem for Wikipedia, and so it should be corrected.
As for the site, the most secure thing to do if no copyright is clearly stated, is to assume there is. Perhaps you are right, perhaps that site does not really own the image but just makes copies, perhaps it's just an image they found at another site wich found at another site and so on... but we can't afford us the luxury of "guessing" that. Unless the real source of the image and it's copyright is found and clearly showed, he have to assume the worst scenario (that this site holds the rights and does not allow re-distribution) and work upon it. --Perón 13:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Che Guevara page and the issue of magazine cover usage

In editing this Eva Peron article and attempting to get it to Good Article status, and now Featured Article status, my main model has been the Che Guevara article. I figure it's a natural model because both people are major Latin American icons, and both are from Argentina. Futher, the Che Guevara article is a Featured Article.

What made me think it would be okay to upload the images of Evita on the cover of Time magazine is that the Che Guevara article contains an image of Che on the cover of Time magazine, as well as another magazine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ergstimecover1960.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dscoverche-gandhi.jpg

I also note, though this is no criticism of the editors of the Guevara article, that both magazine images lack substantional fair use rationale. My point being that with the Che Guevara magazine as my model, it is understandable that I made the decisions I made with the Eva Peron article. Can someone explain to me why magazine covers are allowed on Che Guevara's article and not Eva Peron's? Thank you.

In Good Faith,

Andrew Parodi 12:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The main idea is that possible infractions to policies in articles and images are not judged "in groups", each one is judged on it's own. Whatever happens with the images in the article of Che Guevara will not have any effect on te images here, and the other way around. It's easier to mantain Wikipedia this way. Is anyone aware of the status of all images available here? --Perón 02:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But this seems to contradict what both you and Foolscape are presenting me with. Both of you have referenced Wikipedia policy, saying that various things need to be deleted from this page on Eva Peron in order to stay within Wikipedia policy. A policy is a policy. It seems to me that you and Foolscape are simply trying to railroad over the work I have done on this page, and when it is convenient for both of you, you reference Wikipedia policy. When it isn't convenient, you say, "Oh, that policy doesn't apply here." Please remain consistent. Andrew Parodi 02:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the detail satisfies you, I haven't even touched the article itself, despite my opinions about it. I save my best contributions for the Wikipedia in spanish (by the way, I worked in the spanish version of this article, wich gained featured status by 36-0). Your work remains untouched by me. Images, on the other hand, are not you work and are not yours (at least, not unless you provide them with a creative commons licence or other similar), so you shouldn't take it personal if they are removed and replaced by others with a licence that serves the Wikimedia project better than the fair use figure. --Perón 03:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my claim that it is completely outrageous for you and Foolscape to accuse me of theft of any kind. You both owe me an apology. How can I not take such accusations personally when they are told in unison with various other personal insults Foolscape has subjected me to (see above), and when they are accusing me personally of committing a legal transgression? Technically speaking, if there were any "theft" in this picture, it would be between Wikipedia and the site I got the picture from, as I am merely an editor ON Wikipedia. I did not copy that picture and use it for my own uses, but uploaded it to Wikipedia for the use of the website.
Contrary to your claim that I am taking this personally, I am not. I did not upload that picture for my own 'personal' use. I uploaded it for this website, which is for the use of many people. With your debased accusation that I have committed "theft," you are MAKING this a personal issue. Please stop. Andrew Parodi 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: My only point in mentioning that I am the main person to work on the text of this page which has been declared a Good Article is to mention that it would seem I'd have an established history of having Good Faith with this page. If I were a new editor who just came in and haphazardly inserted something, then I can understand why others who had worked on this page would be upset with my novice approach. However, I have been working on this page for longer than anyone. In point of fact, I developed the template for this page which was later transferred over to the Spanish language version. The Spanish language version has since parted from that template, but the point is obvious. My history of work with this page demonstrates a Good Faith approach. I wish certain other editors would address me in that context. Andrew Parodi 03:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sex

There is a quote of text I have removed that talks about the private sexual life of Peron and Evita. Despite this urban myth being with sources, it is completely irrelevant for an encyclopedia.

It was restored, but I don't agree with the reasons provided. First, the ideas about Peron's sexuality and the idea that this would "prove" that that was a marriage of convenience rather than love is just speculation. Speculation of others from outside of wikipedia, speculation wich does not contradict the policy of Wikipedia not being a primary source... but speculation anyway.

And second, the oposition who called her a "prostitute" only did so in an insulting manner, as the word "puta" (slang contraction of "prostitute") is considered a very grave insult for a woman. It's not that any of them actually believed her to be really involved in prostitution. --Perón 22:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearance and return of corpse

There are a couple of errors here. Firstly, there are no citations for anything in this entire section with the exception of the very last quote at the end of the last paragraph (unless I am reading it wrong, and the last citation is meant to indicate that ALL of this section's information comes from 'Evita: The Real Life of the Woman. Fraser, Nicholas. Navarro, Marysa. Page 192' In which case, its an awful lot of information to get from one page of a biography).

Secondly, in the quote 'Martínez claimed that the corpse was damaged with a hammer and that one officer even committed necrophiliac acts on one of the copies of the corpse.' The word should be 'necrophilic'. The word that is currently used refers to a person who has sexual attraction to corpses. 'Necrophilic' is the proper adjective. But at any rate, this point is moot, as the sentence should state 'Martínez claimed that the corpse was damaged with a hammer and that one officer even committed sexual acts on one of the copies of the corpse.' This is because a corpse is a BODY of a person or animal. A wax likeness of a body is not the same thing. You can't have necrophilic actions without a body people. SJM 28 February 2007

Good points. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 21:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations in the lede section

Looking toward putting the article up for FAC in the near future, I'm thinking that we should look at the fourth paragraph of the introduction. One, most FAs seem to keep their ledes at three paragraphs, and two, I've seen FAC objections to cited statements in the lede (the idea being that the lede is only a summary of the article, and details needing citation should be only in the article's body sections). So please voice thoughts on how to address these issues. -Fsotrain09 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'd like to have this article become a FAC. I think it will need A LOT of work before then, so thank you for the suggestions.
I always felt that an obvious choice for a model for this article is the Che Guevara article. I notice that, as you said, that article's intro is only three paragraphs. However, that article also has about four citations. With regard to this Eva Peron article, I have thought for some time that the fourth paragraph is not necessary. It's too thin and doesn't really go anywhere. So, I'll edit it. The reference to her being referred to as the most powerful woman in the world is probably not that important after all. So, I'll take that out and merge what is left with the previous paragraph, giving us three paragraphs. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 07:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: It just occurred to me.... Her death and funeral was THE political event in Argentina during the year of 1952. Additionally, she was given a state funeral even though she wasn't an official member of the government. Her funeral produced (and I quote from a documentary) "legendary images of Argentina." So, I'm wondering, do you think reference to her state funeral should be mentioned in the intro? Do you think the disapearance of her corpse should be mentioned as well? These are undeniably important aspects of her history. Andrew Parodi 07:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are very important to her history, and the article gives them that necessary attention, so a comprehensive lede summarizing the article should mention them. The issue is how to do so in a way that minimizes the need for cited statements. -Fsotrain09 01:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The other challenge is how are we to refer to this state funeral, which was itself a form of hagiography, without being accused by others of creating hagiography for Evita? Does that make any sense? I mean, I can see it now. Maybe one way to avoid that will be to include mention that the extent of the funeral and mourning was controversial and in the opinions of some it was oppressive. I recall mention that some lost jobs when they didn't mourn for Evita. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Having now looked at some recently promoted FAs with citations in their ledes, I'm going to say that for these important aspects of her history (and the article), citations will be fine, and necessary for the potentially controversial statements. This can always be adjusted based on reviewer comment in an FAC. Thanks for your continued work, Andrew. -Fsotrain09 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from a reader

Good article. I just had one complaint about the flow as a biographical piece. The story sort of jumps right from radio actress to rainbow tour, with no mention of becoming acquainted with or marrying Peron. I'm in no position to write about it, but it seems a bit disjointed in that area. Excellent work all around. Powerlad 01:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. And thank you for noting that two entire sections of this article had been mysteriously deleted. We'll need to keep an eye on this from now on. How does stuff like this sneak by? Andrew Parodi 04:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/v/a/Talk%7EEva_Per%C3%B3n_a114.html"