Talk:José María Rosa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saying "Restored factual and sourced information" when you restore "He was a fascist sympathizer and an acknowledged anti-Semite." is at least too pretentious and at most a blatant lie. Besides when you have a full article with lots of data, sources, facts, and even opinions everything can count as a contribution to the truth. When you have an stub with almost no data, and with data selectively left behind (as we can all prove just by searching for JMR on google and seeing the bios there, *part* of which are copied here) a comment like that is just defamation. It is like "ok I don't have a clue about you but you are fascist and anti-semite, oh and I found a book somewhere that says it too so is factual and sourced information" Jose Maria Rosa was an historian and the article should be about that, after the article have enough information of JMR as historian then you can write OPINIONS about him as a person, beliefs and so on but that kind of information should not be the main focus of the article. Also I would really like to know what is a fascist sympathizer, how do someone qualifies as one, and what is the required information needed to say that any given person is a fascist sympathizer?

Also, every editor should try to remain objective and NOT using CHEAP tricks to mislead the reader. Examples of cheap tricks is to say "He lived in Uruguay and Franco's Spain" so we first call him a fascist and then we say that he lived in Franco's Spain to reinforce (?) the idea. Why is it just Uruguay and not WhateverTheRuler's Uruguay? Why not just Spain? After all he went to spain not because of the ruler, what is the relevance of the ruler? Is the editor implying that he went to Spain cause of Franco? if so, can he prove it? The objective factual not misleading information is that he lived in Spain, period.

Unless you want to edit every bio on wikipedia adding "Ruler's Country" to each and every person I just don't understand why some people lived on Ruler's Country and other people lived in just... Country.

I don't know if you had the chance to ever read or hear JMR in public. Any unbiased observer would have characterized his tirades as antisemitic and fascist, like his constant references to Jewish slave traders. The article also brings the Muchnik's book as a source. And with respect of the information that he moved to Franco's Spain. I don't think it is a cheap trick. He moved to a country were he felt comfortable living, that happen to be under the rule of a fascist dictator. Bakersville

Haven't read JMR myself, but if you're a an outspoken intellectual with radical opinions, it's extremely significant if you choose to live in (or exile from) a country subject to a dictatorship with a certain ideological bent. If you don't know what was happening in Spain back then, saying just "Spain" leaves you with a very different impression than specifying it was "Franco's Spain", just as saying "Russia" is not the same as saying "Stalin's Russia". —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems to forget the fact that he didn't choose to live there he was forced to exile from Argentina, and, being argentine, spain is a pretty common destination when someone can't live on their own country, the contrary would mean stating that every Argentine (or every person) who happened to live in Spain at that time was a fascist lover or something like that. Or are you implying that when the argentine military dictatorship were in power every person living in Argentina were fascists or murderers or murderers supporters and felt comfortable living there? What a perfect example of biased reasoning and lack of intellectual honesty. "If JMR went to spain is cause he was a fascist if I lived in Argentina while the de facto goverment where killing thousands of people I was just a regular guy" Regarding "I don't know if you had the chance to ever read or hear JMR in public. Any unbiased observer would have characterized his tirades as antisemitic and fascist, like his constant references to Jewish slave traders" is sheer speculation. I don't know what would any unbiased observer have thought. Neither do you. And is not your job to judge that, if you write an article your responsibility is to state facts or at least to show the "two bells", not judging what would "any unbiased observer have thought". "The article also brings the Muchnik's book as a source" another irrelevant and cheap trick. I can state *whatever* I want regarding any person I want and find a source to "confirm" it. And the argentine history is, sadly, a perfect example of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.230.2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 December 2006.

Franco ruled Spain until 1973 and died in 1975, so Argentinians fleeing the National Reorganization Process (1976-1983) could hardly have fled to Franco's Spain.

Not all sources are the same. Not even all historians are the same as sources (I wouldn't quote Felipe Pigna on any serious matter). However, it's true that we can't guess what an unbiased observer would have thought, mainly because there are no truly unbiased observers.

Muchnik seems to be a respected writer and calls JMR an antisemite, so we must cite his book. If there's an equally reputable source that contradicts that, then we must cite it too. I'd like to see what Muchnik says about JMR, and read JMR's own words if possible. The review of Muchnik's book in Clarín says: "... The book also analyzes Argentine examples of antisemite nationalism, from Leopoldo Lugones and Hugo Wast ... to Enrique Larreta, José María Rosa, Carlos Ibarguren, Jordán Bruno Genta, Julio Meinville...". So an independent reviewer agrees with Muchnik (indeed, it treats JMR's antisemitism as a given, not as a controversial statement). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And what does the National Reorganization Process have to do with anything here? Did I mention it regarding living in spain? No, I didn't. Another cheap trick to avoid replying to the REAL point. (And btw the national reorganization process were not the only military dictatorship in Argentina nor was the only to kill people)

Regarding "Muchnik seems to be a respected" respected by who? This is just another biased comment. "JMR seems to be a respected historian". My dog seems to be a respected dog. "So an independent reviewer agrees with Muchnik " Come on, you can't really be THAT naive. There is no such thing as an "independent reviewer" and is just silly to say that when you are talking about corporate journalism. "it treats JMR's antisemitism as a given, not as a controversial statement" which, of course, is just plain wrong. The whole point is to treat it as controversial and prove it.

Please sign your statements using four tildes (~~~~), assume good faith, and be civil. Nobody likes being called stupid (or words to that effect). So far it seems to be only you who disagrees with the claim that JMR was an antisemite. We're not here to meta-discuss the integrity of corporate journalism; we work on sources, not on our opinions of those sources. If you don't understand that, see WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)