Talk:Eva Perón/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Maintaining Good Article status

If anyone reading this has any suggestions on how to improve this article, please offer your advice. This article has been at the Good Article level for some time now. It would be nice to have it go to the Featured Article level now. Please give any insight or opinions. Previous comments have been that the article is a bit long. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are not chat rooms or forums

I have taken the liberty of adding new information boxes at the top of this page. Given that Eva Peron is a controversial topic it is understandable that exchanges about her often become heated. However, the purpose of a talk page is not to serve as a discussion forum (WP:NOTFORUM) or a chat room (WP:NOT#CHAT). Personal messages between specific editors are better left on the personal talk pages of the specific editors. As per the "notforum" template, any comments left on an article talk page that are within the context of a forum discussion may be deleted. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference to ALW musical in lede

A fellow editor has suggested that the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber be mentioned in the intro paragraphs. This had previously been discussed. The decision that had previously been reached is that there are many renderings of her life and it is unfortunate that most people know her solely from the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber, and perhaps this article could aid in reversing this trend. So, with this in mind, I made sure that the intro paragraphs reference the overall international phenomenon of her life, that is, the many renderings, not giving weight to any one particular rendering. Rather than say "she is the subject of the ALW musical" it is more democratic to say "she is the subject of many works" and then the specific, individual works, can be listed more specifically later in the article. (Her profile in Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't even make reference to the musical by ALW at all.) Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

←in the earlier discussion you acknowledge that:

the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber is more famous than Eva Peron herself

which is surely justification enough to mention it in the lede? Whether this fame is "unfortunate " is PoV; but it is a fact which we should take into account. It is not our place to try to influence such matters. Such fame does not extend to other works, and the matter is not one of "democracy". Nor are we governed by EB. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the historical woman herself. This is not an article about the musical. Given that the musical is indeed more famous than the woman herself, the musical has its own article: Evita (musical). It is not POV to point out that this is an article about the historical woman herself.

The musical itself was not important in the life of the historical woman. The musical was written more than 20 years after the death of the historical woman. The historical woman has been the subject of many renderings, and that fact is mentioned in the intro paragraphs.

Incidentally, in the English speaking world the musical is more famous than the historical woman. This is not the case in Latin America, and it is particularly not the case in Argentina. In Argentina the historical woman is more famous, with the musical being but a mere footnote. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not claimed that "this is an article about the musical"; nor have I claimed that it is PoV to point out that "this is an article about the historical woman herself". Please try not to introduce straw-man arguments. It is not unreasonable to mention an extremely significant ("more famous than Eva Peron herself") part of her legacy in the lede of the article about her; whether or not it has its own article is immaterial. Since this article is part of the English-language Wikipedia, "the English speaking world" is its primary audience. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll set aside the fact that I don't view my arguments to be "straw man arguments".... Frankly, I'm not even sure what that means, but I assume that it is not good.

You have agreed with every statement I've made. That this is an article about the historical woman. That the musical has its own article. You have also agreed that in the English speaking world the musical is more famous than the woman. (It seems to be that it is not immaterial that the musical has its own article. The fact that it has its own article establishes that it is notable, which is what you are saying to begin with.)

The consequence of this is that people have come to believe that the musical is the true history of the woman. Many biographers now agree that the musical is very inaccurate, having been based on the highly inaccurate biography The Woman with the Whip. The concern I have is that by introducing the musical early in the biography we will be mixing the characterization of the woman in the musical with the historical woman, thus seeming to endorse the idea that the musical is correct history.

In other words, the problem is that many people confuse the historical woman with the characterization of the historical woman in the musical by Lloyd Webber. My concern is that to emphasize the musical this early in the article is to endorse this confusion. As I also mention, to introduce the musical this early in the article is to emphasize a cultural bias. The musical is not more famous in the Spanish speaking world, the very world from which Eva Peron originates. See, for example, the Spanish language article about Eva Peron (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Peron) -- which is a Featured Article; it does not reference the musical in the lede.

Mahatma Gandhi was the subject of a hugely successful biography motion picture, but this is not mentioned in the lede in his biography.

At any rate, her importance in popular culture is already discussed in the succinctly written lede. The most famous, though hardly the only, manifestation is the musical -- which is already mentioned as well, though lower in the article.

Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear how you can assert that your arguments are not "straw men", while saying that you do not know what that means. That's by-the-by, The fact that I have not disputed factual matters does not mean that I have to agree with the flawed conclusion which you have drawn from them. Your Gandhi argument is a red herring, since the movie is not "more famous" than the man. The Spanish article is another red herring. No cultural bias is introduced by a bald factual statement that she is the subject of a notable musical. If the LW musical is not factually accurate then it should be mentioned in the lede as, say, the "partially fictionalised musical…". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is starting to get brittle to say the least, if not a little geeky as well. (lol) I fear we shall be reduced to eye poking and wedgies shortly. (lol) So, I will refrain from going any further in presenting my case. I've already presented my arguments and they have been met with rejection. (While I'm not too sure what a straw man argument is, the implication is obvious: not sound, in your opinion.) And you have presented your argument, and I have stated that I don't agree. So, I think the only recourse at this point is to ask for a third-party to intervene. I think the Wikipedia rule is that after an article has been reverted three times then both parties need to cease for at least 24 hours and seek intervention from someone else. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I saw this dispute on third opinion, and after reviewing it, here's my take:

This is a question about the lead of the article. The lead of the article is covered by the WP:LEAD guideline. The lead guideline says that it should summarise the important parts of the article, with emphasis that "should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources". Popular culture is already in the article, and in the lead, and in my view properly so. Because that particular popular culture item is by far the most notable (about half the popular culture section refers to it or is related to it, and I wouldn't imagine that that be undue weight for English speakers), so it probably should be specifically mentioned within at least a single sentence in the lead; I think most readers would consider it notable enough to be there.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see if I can come up with a succinct reference to the musical in the lead. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to; one was provided earlier today, which you've removed, more than once. As for this edit summary, "weasel words" was not a personal attack; weasel words is clearly defined concept on Wikipedia and "Outside of Argentina Eva Perón is perhaps most famously…" certainly qualifies. Please read WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, one was provided earlier -- placed in the wrong section of the paragraph, making it appear that the ALW production was an Argentine production [1]. (And I may add that your original edit was also uncited.) At any rate, I have included a citation. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The mis-location of the text to which you refer was already fixed when you reverted it again. The use of weasel words in a cited reference does not justify there use in a Wikipedia article (outside of a direct quotation, inside quote marks, of course). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 03:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your original edit was in the wrong place and was not cited. Subsequent edits were in a more correct place but still uncited. Please do not communicate with me any further in any context. If you have any further concerns about this article please take them to another editor as it appears that we have a great deal of difficulty communicating with one another. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you don't get to 'ban' me from this talk page; and you don't get to make misleading accusations about me without having them refuted. Secondly, you removed the text to which I refer after it was moved to the correct position, and thirdly it is not necessary to cite text in a lede which summarises something discussed more detail, and cited, in the body of an article, so your repeated claims that my addition were uncited are bogus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Cited later in the article, by me. It's wonderful to put a great deal of effort into an article, carrying it from being a stub to being a Good Article, continually protect it from being demoted, and be met with great disrespect by someone whose contributions rest on my previous contributions. (I not only wrote and cited the paragraphs regarding the musical, I also personally took the photograph that illustrates that section, the photograph of Liza Minnelli in front of Evita's tomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lizaminnellievitatomb.jpg.) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I refer you once again to WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that you also need to read WP:NPA. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed text

Unresolved

The net result of the above exchange is that the text which I added::

She is the subject of Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, Evita.

has been replaced with:

Tomás Eloy Martínez, director of Latin American studies at Rutgers University, has stated that outside of Argentina Eva Perón is most famously known as the subject of the musical Evita, but within Argentina the musical serves only to enhance the legend of the historical Eva Perón.

I contend that the latter is too wordy and detailed for a lede; and the that former should be restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Having had no response to the above comment, I restored the more concise wording. 209.244.31.61 (talk · contribs) (probably Andrew Parodi, from previous edits) has twice reverted me, with no edit summary and no comment - let alone any attempt to reach consensus - here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that there has still been no discussion, and no attempt to justify the more verbose version, Accordingly, I shall restore the short version. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

i came here from the ANI posting and I agree the the former is much more preferrable over the latter. You don't need a so-called expert to state the obvious. The lead should be a summary of the person, not an in-depth analysis of her. Themfromspace (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted early, this has been already discussed in the past, so I will raise back my position by then.

To clarify this, we can check how such an issue of historical reality vs. more popular but inacurate media portrayal is handled. We have such an example with the movie 300, wich is a portrayal of the Battle of Thermopylae (wich is a good article). Clearly, the film 300 is far more popular than the musical Evita, being a modern day hollywood superproduction and such. In fact, it has been made and published during Wikipedia's lifetime, while the Evita musical has been for the project a past issue all the time. This means that the whole accuracy issue of the articles related with the mostly-unknown battle retold by Gerard Butler and the others has been more closely supervised by more users than those of Evita.

Well, as you can check, the good article Battle of Thermopylae does not make a single comment in the lead about the big superproduction based on it. Only about the real thing. "Thermopylae in popular culture" comes very, very later in the article.

Besides, we shouldn't lost focus in that this is an encyclopedia. If there is truly such confusion among some people about what is real history and what is portrayal's fiction, malicious slander made up by local or foreign detractors, or mixture of both (slander taken as fact and introduced in portrayals), then the purpose of an encyclopedia article about the real Eva Perón is to clarify such things, by sticking to the historical reality, and the historical reality only. In wich circumstances she joined the world of politics, what things has she done, and wich political impact does her death had and even kept having for many time after dead.

Don't forget that we are not talking about an otherwise non-notable person made famous by a musical. Evita is an important political figure of Argentine history by her own merits.

Lastly, we may invert the discussion: how would you react if the article about Abraham Lincoln or George Washington stated that in X country they are mostly unknown and known just by the related Simpsons jokes? MBelgrano (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) PD: I'm not related with the IP that reverted the text. I just saw the discussion and joined it

Premature archiving

I note that Andrew Parodi archived this discussion, which I have restored, and did so less than 18 hours after I made the above comment, with an empty edit summary; and did so immediately after making this edit. Such behaviour, by an involved editor, is reprehensible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To other editors: Talk page was archived because it was felt that the perceived resolved discussion had become too long and a new talk page was warranted. Wikipedia:Assume good faith -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Good faith can be measured by the fact that you've done it again, just over 6 hours from posting the above comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Text was archived because it was felt that the discussion had met its conclusion. The other editor entered into the discussion to express his concern that a reference to the musical Evita (musical) be included in the lead in the article. This inclusion was made, therefore it was felt that the resolution had been reached, and because the talk page had become lengthy it was archived. Further, the exchange between the other editor and myself had reached the point of being a forum (WP:NOTFORUM) and a chat (WP:NOT#CHAT), which is not the point of a talk page. As per the "notforum" template, comments that disgress to the level of a chat or forum may be deleted. For all of these reasons, the talk page was archived. If fellow editors are wont to intervene, please do. I have been trying very hard to end this childish squabble. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour in this matter is now the subject of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Eva Peron. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Your behavior" .... Please. You're not my father. You're not my mother. You are a person who has been hostile and condescending from the start. It is your behavior that has brought it to this. I am glad that others are intervening because I cannot deal with you anymore. As I mentioned on the noticeboard, I actually have a life outside of Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Your behaviour" - others are intervening to tell you, as I have been doing, that it is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

When the time comes that you are done condescending to me and talking down to me, perhaps you can then answer the question that is actually important: Do you have anything to contribute to this article? Your one extremely minor contribution, that the musical should be mentioned in the lead, has been included. (With regard to others "intervening," I will note that you are the one who placed the notice on the noticeboard. You "intervened.") This is all childish beyond belief. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Nothing to contribute to the article itself, just abbreviations intended as insults to me written on the talk page. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

 

"Evita" entry

Currently, the term "Evita" is a disambiguation page, leading to either this article, the musical or other terms of little usage.

I think that, like it is done at wikipedia in spanish, "Evita" should redirect here and the disambiguation page be located at Evita (disambiguation). Yes, I know many people know the musical better. However, that musical is based in Eva Perón, it's not an unrelated fictional character that simply happens to use the same name (it's not like the Zorro character, wich has no intended relation with Julio Roca). When the musical was named "Evita", it was in reference to the popular name already given to Eva Perón, so it remains being the primary usage.

I should also mention that in other cases I checked about historical people known also by a made-up name or expresion, such name or expresion has always redirected to the hpeople, regardless of other eventual portrayals using such name. For example, Alexander the Great, Honest Abe, JFK, Che Guevara, etc. MBelgrano (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, this is the only point I've been attempting to make all along: that the historical Eva Perón came first.

Though the musical may be more famous on an international scale than the historical woman, on the biographical page of the historical woman it is the woman herself who is most important.

The musical is written by two English men: Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber. The characterization of Eva Peron in the musical is based on the work of an English woman: The Woman with the Whip. A certain editor who is adamant that the musical be mentioned in the intro paragraphs is himself from England: [2].

I find it interesting that it is someone named "MBelgrano" [3] who understands that, though the English musical is more famous, the historical Argentine woman came first. It is a point that the editors of the Spanish language version of this article (a featured article most likely primarily authored by native Argentines) understood as well, which is why the musical isn't even mentioned in the intro paragraphs of the Spanish language article: [4] -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The current disambiguation arrangement is fine. Almost all of the first 20 Google searches - in the English language Google - for "Evita" refer to the musical and the purpose of disambiguation is to help our readers find what they're looking for; not to settle some arcane disagreement over which use of the term has historical precedence. Indeed, if any change were to be made, Evita should redirect to the musical, but the present aranegement minimises the likely edit wars which would result from either change. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Google is not an authoritative source on this subject. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not an arcane matter. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the subject "Eva Peron", then you're correct; but then I didn't claim that "Google is an authoritative source on Eva Peron". If you mean that "Google is not an authoritative source on the subject of what people write about or search for on the web", then I think you'll find that it very much is. I'll ignore the straw man you used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do. It's easy to ignore something that isn't there. I didn't use a straw man. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You said "The purpose of a Wikipedia article is not an arcane matter". That's a straw man, because no-one had claimed that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is an arcane matter. HTH. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Eva Peron. Eva Peron was opposed to the English domination of Argentina. The musical is anti-Eva Peron and is based on the book The Woman with the Whip which is by an English woman. The musical is written by two English men and contains references to Eva Peron's opposition to English domination of her country: "(She) gave us back our businesses/Got the English out." "Who the hell does the king of England think he is?" I postulate that your insistence that the musical be referenced in the opening paragraphs is correlated to the fact that you are English, as it has become apparent that you believe that the most important thing that ever happened in her life was that she was the subject of a musical by two of your countrymen.

You are incorrect to say that this is an "arcane matter." Peronism's relation with England, Argentina's relation with England (Falkland War), Eva Peron's relation with England, is very central to this article. (Incidentally, I remember visiting her tomb and seeing an English documentary crew filming. After the host read from the plaque "No me llores" ["Don't cry for me"], the camera man joked, "Did she say that before Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote it?") -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your potted summary of the article; it will come in handy, should I ever forget that I have already read it. Your claims about what you suppose I believe and have said are bogus; and in breach of WP:AGF. Is suggest that you read and try to understand that policy before you repeat them. They are also irrelevant, because we are discussing (for some reason not apparent; here, rather than in the correct place) the use of a disambiguation page; not the lead of this article. I've again correctly indented your comments. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That's all you're capable of doing: memorizing templates and WP pages and then giving links to them. Meanwhile, you continue to violate everything you say I'm violating because you continue to be attacking and condescending to me. Or, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps you aren't English. Perhaps ALW and Tim Rice aren't English. Perhaps Mary Main isn't English. Perhaps there is no significance to the fact that the Spanish language version of the article does not list the musical in the intro paragraphs, and it is an Argentine who agrees that the musical should not be central to this article; and it is an English person who thinks the musical should be highlighted. Oh, and thanks for "correctly indenting" my comments. I apologize that I have not memorized all the rules you've memorized. In the time I could've spent memorizing all sort of rules and then using them to appear pompous to other people and belittle them, I have actually been reading articles and books pertinent to the content of the articles I edit. Thank you. (Now please correctly indent this paragraph.) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Oh, and there's got to be some rule out there against referring to the comments of another person as "potted" and "straw man." I think technically speaking this may be slander. Thank you.

I have indeed again fixed the indentation of your comments. Your discourtesy to other readers and editors in deliberately not doing so is reprehensible. Please indent correctly in future. You accusations are both baseless and further breaches of the policies which you falsely accuse me of breaching. You have already been told once at WP:ANI that your behaviour on this talk page has been inappropriate. Are you determined to go there again? Your rant on nationalities is as irrelevant as its predecessor. And no, there is no rule on Wikpedia against referring to someone's comments as "potted" (a synonym for "abridged" - feel free to deny that applies) or as straw men; though there is a rule against calling someone's comments slander. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The only people who have told me that "my behavior" is not appropriate is YOU. The editors who granted this article Good Article status based upon my contributions seemed to find "my behavior" acceptable. And, again, yes, very impressed that you know many links. Setting aside the fact that your impressive knowledge of all sorts of links and acronyms has nothing to do with the actual article about Eva Peron, I stand by my statement that you have treated me in a slanderous manner by callously ignoring my beneficial contributions to this article, talking down to me, referring to my arguments as "straw man" arguments, and now referring to them as "rants." Right back at you, my English friend. You've been ranting for quite some time now about your great knowledge of acronyms on Wikipedia. Thank you. (Oh, and the only real problem is that I hit too deep a nerve by introducing the fact that your nationality influences your view of Eva Peron's greatest significance as derived from the fact that two English men wrote a musical about her.) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your indentation is again broken, making comments such as that by Wolfkeeper (18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)) appear to be replying to yours (and now mine). You have been told by a number of uninvolved, and thus independent, editors that your behaviour has been inappropriate; for instance jpgordo said that your "Deleting other editor's good-faith comments is always inflammatory and usually unnecessarily so". Your accusations, including that of nationalist bias, remain both unfounded and unacceptable. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sanity check. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the best guide for what should go where is the usage patterns of our users:

• Evita - Evita has been viewed 7708 times in 200811.
• Evita (musical) -Evita_(musical) has been viewed 17875 times in 200811.
• Eva Peron -Eva_Perón has been viewed 48110 times in 200811.

So the Eva Peron article is about 3x more popular, and hardly anyone disambiguates. My suspicion is though that the Evita article acts as a feeder for Eva Peron with lots of people clicking through, so in terms of heads it may only be twice as popular in practice, but we've no way to be sure.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your statistics tell us nothing of what people who enter "evita" in our search box are looking for; all 7708 of the people who visited the first article you list could have clicked through to the second. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if that was the case, and all users that checked the musical article also checked the one about the historical woman, it would still be less than half. We would still have a majority of users checking the article about the real Eva Perón and with no interest whatsoever in an old musical MBelgrano (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusions may be correct, but are irrelevant. We have no evidence that anyone searching for the string "evita" is looking for the article on Eva Peron. All we can do is draw conclusions based on the use of the search term "evita" in the wider world. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The defects and limitations of using Google or other search engine to check "common usage" in the "wider world" is described at Wikipedia:Search engine test. It's even exponentially worse if you select simply the first 20 results as a representative sample. The statistics of article visit, on the other hand, are much more effective, not for finding out the common usage in the wider world but the usage intended by visitors.

I must note as well that Wikipedia in english does not aim to cover topics from the perspective of english-speaking countries, but from the one of all countries toguether (same goes for all X languaje wikipedias and the countries of such languajes, but that's beyond the topic). The perspective of spanish speaking countries is not to be minimized regadless of whatever languaje this wikipedia is written into as long as it keeps the neutral point of view among the five pillars; and the bias of google searches must be taken in consideration.

But in short: I have explained without flawed search engine tests that "Evita" is primary meant as the common name of Eva Perón, what is usually done with other similar cases, and we have statistics at hand: great advantage for the woman among article visits, vs. great advantage of the musical among first 20 google results. The course of action seems clear to me. MBelgrano (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, on second thoughts, I think you should go with google on "Evita". It should link to the same thing google puts on top. Google goes through all the web pages and where it says 'evita' in or around the link, it counts it. The fact that the musical gets the most link juice means that that's what is mostly being linked to; and the standard theory is that that's what most people will click on, for that term. When I just tried it it got the musical (although it got the film on another website).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From which page: "Depending on the subject matter, and how carefully it is used, a search engine test can be very effective and helpful, or produce misleading or non-useful results. In most cases, a search engine test is a first-pass heuristic or 'rule of thumb'". But that's a distraction; the fact is that the statistics provided tell us nothing of what people who enter "evita" in our search box are looking for. Your assertion that 'Evita' is primary meant as the common name of Eva Peron" is just that, with no evidence to support it; and is irrelevant, because what it means is not the issue, but what people searching on that string want is. I'm repeating myself, because you seem to have ignored these points previously. The current disambiguation serves our users well; the proposed change would not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying that the article visit statistic do not mean anything, and yet base your tesis on another set of stadistics, a google search? And not even a real google search, but only the first 20 results.

It seems you fail to notice that Google is not the promised land of neutrality and impartiality. It's explained in detail in the given page, but it can shortened this way: Google does not correctly reflect all internet content, nor internet correctly reflect all human knowledge. MBelgrano (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia should reflect the works of notable, citable scholars. Notable, citable scholars on the life of the historical Eva Peron rarely, if ever, mention the musical at all.

If it is the role of Wikipedia to simply mirror Google search results, then what is the point of having Wikipedia at all? Let's just start citing Google search results in our articles. (Oh. I see we already have done that. Sorry.) -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The material that is in the wikipedia needs to follow reliable sources. Period. But the names that an article are reached by are supposed to reflect our best understanding of what the users most frequently expect to get for what they type in. Google shows that when people link to the wikipedia under 'Evita' they usually link to the musical first and then Eva Peron second presumably other definitions such as people's first names would be third or lower. And when you google eva peron, you get eva peron, not Evita. This seems from the evidence we have from google that that is the way the majority expect it to work.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Evita should redirect to the musical, I agree with putting the dab page at Evita (dab). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Exactly" what? Wikipedia articles should indeed reflect notable, citable scholars. Wikipedia redirects on the other hand, exist solely to help our users find the articles they seek. The frequency of references by academics writing about Peron, to the musical (which is also written about by notable, citable scholars), has no bearing on the target of the disambiguation page. The point of your Google comment escapes me, but I'm sure that any reference to search results in articles will need to be cited in the usual way. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Evita is just fine as and where it is. Madonna is perhaps comparable. Occuli (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Or not? ;-) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Evita" probably is used more often to refer to the musical than the person, but not by a large enough margin that it is clearly, unambiguously, the primary topic. I suggest keeping the dismabiguation page at Evita. --barneca (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dangling Participle

Near the beginning we find "Born out of wedlock in rural Argentina in 1919, at the age of 15." Born at the age of 15? That certainly was a long labor!

130.13.19.212 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

I have again removed an item of synthesis: the claim that Peron "has also remained an important cultural figure in Argentina" was not supported by any of the references given after it. Indeed, the latest notes a resurgence ("calling her name again"); which is the opposite of "remaining". The word "culture" and its derivatives do not feature. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the entire article, if you showed nearly the interest in the actual content of the article as you do in throwing your weight around and trying to impress everyone with your memorization of all sort of rules on Wikipedia, you may have noticed that the article does indeed contain such a quote. Eva Peron's great niece is quoted as saying that Eva Peron has never left the collective conscience of Argentines. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Christina Alvarez Rodriguez, who heads a historical research centre dedicated to her great-aunt, said: "Evita never really left the collective conscience of Argentines. But the current crisis has led so many people to look to her for hope. She was the woman who fought for the dignity of the poor and became the spokeswoman for social justice, something which we lack in Argentina. That is why we are seeking her out again." [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Parodi (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 January 2009

Cease making personal attacks. The quote - from an article which I both read and comprehended - does indeed say "Evita never really left the collective conscience of Argentines". It does not say "has also remained an important cultural figure in Argentina". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I need you to cease and desist from contacting me. [6] Do not write to me on my talk page. If you have anything to say to me, say it through a third party. Your behavior is verging on harassing. You have continually accused me of using "straw man" arguments; meanwhile this is what you do. You say I do not "assume good faith," but nor do you.

I introduced earlier in our wretched exchanges that the fact that I took this article from being a stub to being a Good Article is demonstrative of the fact that my edits and arguments are in good faith. When I introduced this, you randomly hurled at me some template with the bizarre accusation that I view this as being my article. THAT is a straw man argument! You have continued to randomly hurl acronyms at me, treat me as though I am a child, etc. This is not my article, but nor is it yours.

I need you to cease and desist. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sanity check. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You see it. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tentative suggestion: move popular culture out of the article

I must admit, I usually feel that the real, actual person/thing is qualitatively different from the pop culture thing, and if that is judged to be the case here then you could move the Evita musical stuff out into it's own article, maybe Eva Peron (popular culture), you could very, very probably make a case that that article was distinct and notable in its own right, and you could make the article here more focused. But you would have to generate consensus to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Che Guevara article has a section on popular culture, though it is admittedly smaller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_guevara#Legacy At any rate, you may have a point. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the popular culture section needs to be removed, so much as significantly pruned back; the Lisa Simpson cruft, as the most blatant example, needs to go. Although this type of "it was in the Simpsons!" stuff isn't my cup of tea, if someone wants to add that to the musical article instead, I won't argue. But here? No, I can't see that.

I'm going to remove that obvious one, and then I'll see if I can prune the less blatant stuff back a little more, and see if my edits are "controversial" or not. --barneca (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a first pass at pruning. revert and discuss anything you disagree with. I'm hoping at least one of those edits is uncontroverial, so my feelings are going to be hurt if they're all just reverted. --barneca (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that some of it needed to be trimmed, but it's really hard for me to prioritize regarding a subject where I'm interested in just about every aspect. But on second thought that reference to the Simpsons episode does seem far fetched for this article. Ultimately, that episode is about the musical, not the historical woman. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I find you're rather begging the question. It seems to me you removed the material to avoid splitting it out into a separate article; you probably wouldn't had to have done that if you had split.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not resolve content disputes by hiving off contentions sections in to separate articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no dispute about this content. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So we all agree it should stay as it is, then. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The only person to raise any issue with Barneca's edits is you. (I'm the one who originated that material Barneca's deleted, and I am fine with it being deleted because I now agree that it was too much.) This seems to imply that a consensus has indeed been reached. Not everyone has to agree. Though I do understand that my comments here most likely violate a plethora of Wikipedia acronyms I am soon to be linked to. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia does that quite often in fact. If there's no consensus how much material should be in one article, and splitting it allows consensus, then it's doubtless a good edit.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 09:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite possible a really interesting article could be made at Eva Peron (popular culture). I really have no problem with someone creating it. There should still (IMHO) be an "in popular culture" section here, and there's not much more that could be pruned. If all we did was move this section (including the material I pruned) to the new article, we'd have a {{main}} template, and then just regurgitate 75% of what's in the new article right below. That wouldn't necessarily be bad if the new article was going to grow, but would be kind of a waste if not.

Also, there are already articles on the musical, the album, the movies... there are already places to put any info that was too detailed for this section.

So, my own opinion is, if we think there is a lot more material that could eventually go into Eva Peron (popular culture), we should create that article as a seed. If there wouldn't be much much more than what was previously here, I don't see the point, but I certainly wouldn't fight it if someone created it. --barneca (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually created a similar article a while ago: Cultural depictions of Eva Perón. It's far from complete. Andrew Parodi (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Martinez Quote

A few hours ago,I added the sentence:

She was far from being a saint, despite the veneration of millions of Argentines, but she was not a villain either.

to the Martinez quote (copied directly from the source), to ensure that the author's words were given proper context and his meaning was not represented. This was soon reverted, with the edit summary "tightening reference to focus on allegations of fascism, rather than analysis of her overall character and career". As the quote now stands, Martinez appears to be giving unqualified support to Evita, without this caveat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern. I am the one who initially included this quote from Martinez. Initially, I included the full quote, ending with the line "She was far from being a saint, despite the veneration of millions of Argentines, but she was not a villain either." A subsequent comment from another editor was that the article was too long and needed trimming. I thereafter removed this sentence (which I had originally included in my first edit) in an attempt to shorten the article. The section is about the allegation of whether she was fascist, and I figured that ending it on the note that she didn't have anything to do with Nazis entering Argentina was a way to keep the block quote focused on whether she was fascist. The sentence in question does not address whether she was fascist but whether she was a saint or a villian, concluding that she was neither.

As I am the one who introduced this section to the article, I have no problem with that sentence. I removed it in an attempt to shorten the article. Now that it was introduced again, I have removed it again for the same reason. If it is inserted again, I won't remove it again because I think that, however unrelated to the topic of whether she was fascist or a fascist sympathizer, it still makes a good point. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture at top of page

Someone recently changed the picture at the top of the page. They changed it to a picture of Eva Peron smiling during one of her weekends with Juan Peron at, I believe, San Vicente (though I may be wrong). I changed the image back to the previous image of Eva Peron addressing a rally from the balcony of the Casa Rosada.

A change may be good, so I'm not too passionate about keeping the current picture of Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada. I do, however, believe that an image of Eva Peron on the balcony of the Casa Rosada before a microphone is most appropriate for the top of this article because it depicts her in the context of her greatest fame. She is most famous as an icon of the masses and an orator who addressed the masses from the Casa Rosada. I just think that for the purposes of this article it's more historically pertinent to have an image of Eva Peron at a rally rather than a casual weekend with her hair down. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Affairs

The musical Evita depicts Eva Peron as working her way up society to Juan Peron via a series of calculated seductions & affairs (and depicts her hence as scheming & evil). Indeed this is what much of the first half of the musical is about. Is there any truth to this? The article doesn't seem to say anything about it. Ben Finn (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article about the musical Evita (musical). That article mentions that the musical is based on the book "The Woman with the Whip" which is anti-Eva Peron. Tomas Eloy Martinez writes that Eva Peron did not have any more affairs than was necessary for survival in a society he called "highly sexist" during a time period when women were so disenfranchised that they weren't even allowed to vote. Martinez mentions something that I've found to be true: just about everyone who knew Eva Peron personally commented that she was the most sexless person they'd ever met. She is said to have had virtually no sex appeal whatsoever. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Small suggestion for Bfinn: if you want to learn about history (of Argentina or whatever place) read books of history. Never use popular culture items (such as movies, fictional books, comic books, etc) as replacements for that. Stories need to have things such as a narrative structure, a begining, an end, a well-defined character, some appeal for the main public it's directed to, etc. Reality (and history, wich is simply the reality of past times) has a great flaw: it usually lacks those things, so narrators add them on ther own. MBelgrano (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Perón"

Why (other than the habit of lingering sexism in our culture) is the subject of this article so infrequently referred to simply by her surname, as is conventional for an encyclopedia article? She is referred to variously as "Eva", as "Eva Perón", and even as "Evita", but rarely as "Perón", which is what Wikipedia style guidelines call for. I understand that in some contexts it's necessary to avoid confusion with her husband, but surely not this often. Likewise, I can see an argument for not calling her "Perón" when she was named Eva Duarte, but calling her "Eva Perón" instead makes even less sense. The only person routinely referred to here as "Perón" is Juan Perón, which is rather confusing in an article about Eva Perón! - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

She probably should not be referred to as Eva, unfortunately this is a lazy writing style that is present in a lot of Wikipedia articles about women (men too, but especially women); it makes it sound like the article subject is your buddy. Evita, though, should be acceptable, because that's the name she seems to be known by most widely, especially within Argentina (compare it to Madonna, etc.). As for why she's rarely called just "Perón", I think you hit the nail on the head—that is used more often to refer to her husband. Perhaps we could try to use it more in the article, but in places where it might be ambiguous (i.e., any sections that talk about both her and the president) it would be necessary to have some disambiguator (such as just calling her "Evita"). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to clean it up. In most cases when talking about both Peróns, "she" and "he" are clear enough in context. In fact, there are a lot of places where just using pronouns reads better. I tried not to use just "Perón" in reference to Juan, because that's simply stylistically incorrect (in this article); "Perón" by itself refers only to her. The only place "Evita" should appear is in a direct quote. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What whould you think if someone suggested to call Martha Washington simply "Washington"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBelgrano (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Before people get all high and mighty throwing bizarre accusations around with speculations about why she is referred to in this article as either "Evita" or "Eva", let me clarify something for those of you who have not studied her life to any great extent.

In studies of Argentine history Juan Peron is usually referred to as "Peron," and Eva Peron is usually referred to as "Evita." If in this article we referred to her as "Peron," it sounds like we're referring to her husband.

Eva Peron herself wrote in her autobiography La Razon de mi Vida that she preferred to be referred to as "Evita," which is the nickname for "Eva." She wrote that in social functions she was referred to either as "Eva Peron" or sometimes "Mrs. President." But she herself wrote that she preferred to be referred to as Evita. (Therefore, it can hardly be claimed that referring to her as "Evita" is indication of sexism.) That is in fact one of her most famous speeches which she gave when she declined the pressure to run for the vice presidency; she said that she wished that in the marvellous chapter of history written about the man she referred to as "Peron" there would be mention that at his side was a woman whom the people "affectionately called 'Evita,' nothing more than Evita."

It is the convention of Wikipedia articles to refer to the subject by the name by which they are most famous. Throughout the world she is known as she wanted to be known, simply as "Evita." Thus, this is reflected in the article. If we referred to her in this article as "Peron," it would appear that we were writing about her husband Juan Peron. I have thus reverted the article to its previous appearance. --- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Evita" should be fine (I think I tried to say as much above). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I remind people from other countries that, despite everything else about Evita (fame, musicals, movies, books, etc.), Juan Domingo Perón was the president of the nation, and Evita wasn't. So, every time we talk about any action done by "Peron", meaning "by the president/goverment/whatever of Argentina in that time period", we talk about Juan Domingo. Yes, many of such things are result of Evita's work, like women's sufrage, but always with the aid and approval of his husband. She hasn't really take any strong action without his support, much less against his views.

Besides, Evita's political life is tied to that of Juan Domingo, but Juan Domingo had political power before Evita became a political leader of her own right, and remained in action for many years after her death, even becoming president a third time and bringing another wife of political relevance. The influence of Juan Domingo Perón in the history and politics of Argentina is far greater than that of Evita, and that's why the name "Perón" alone is more commonly used to talk about him than her. MBelgrano (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Accents on the "o" in "Peronism" and "Peronato"

The user Rjanag [7] has inserted accents over the "o" in the words "Peronism" and "Peronato." Typically, an accent is not found over the "o" in these words. Additionally, this editor has changed the spelling of some images, often adding accents over the "o" in "Peron." While this is correct, if the image itself does not have an accent over the "o," all you do when you add the accent is disable the image -- which is what resulted from these edits. I'm assuming good faith about these edits, but I hope the editor will realize that this is not needed. Thank you. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I know words in engish don't have accents. "Perón" is an exception because it's a personal name, but "peronism" isn't. Even more, in spanish itself "perónismo" would also be a gramatical mistake. MBelgrano (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I already responded to you at my talk page and have fixed all the issues. I've moved on to cleaning up the god-awful citation style which currently violates WP:V. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

MBelgrano, thank you for noting that the accents are not needed. -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I already knew they're not needed; did you not see my messages here and at my talk page? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

I just finished cleaning up the book references in this article. They were very bad, for several reasons:

1. Many references were styled like <ref name=Fraser>Page 17.</ref>, which is useless for the reader because it says what page the information is only but not what source; the source information is only visible from the edit window, which a reader should not have to click to understand the article. This is a serious problem as far as WP:V is concerned.
2. Many references that should have been merged were duplicated over and over again; many that should have been separate (because they had different pages numbers) were meaninglessly merged.
3. Many sources are lacking information necessary to indentify and find the source. I wasn't able to fix many of those, but I marked some (with hidden notes or {{clarify}} tags).

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Was this vandalism?

This edit (note the second link, which points to a page about Nazi Germany)... either the website has totally changed in the past four years (doubtful, I think, given its title) or this was sneaky vandalism that was allowed to remain in the article for four years. In fact, when I was going through the page history trying to find this, it became clear that no one has really edited that "references" section since around November 2005, and all sorts of junk has just been sitting there for years. I've removed most of them now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing them. There was a lot of stuff there that didn't need to be there. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change infobox image

About a month ago, I replaced the current image in the infobox with another one. Below is the current one, to the left, and the one I replaced it with, to the right:

That change was reverted a few days later, with the relevant edit summary pointing to a post made earlier on this talk page, which argued that the current image should be kept because it demonstrated better something of her historical significance; the fact that she spoke publicly on many occasions. I understand said reasoning, and have no complaints with the principle of the revert. However, I do think the image on the right should be used; infobox images are meant to serve as the primary means of identifying the subject. My reading has been that the general Wikipedia perspective is that readers should be able to open up an biographical article, and see clearly what the subject of the article looked like. The current image is very small, does not have a great picture quality, (text striked since better version of photo added) due to and shows just one side of her face. The image on the right, though not having the best picture quality in the world, is much bigger, and more clearly shows Peron. Images denoting her historical significance should be left, in my opinion, for later in the article when they can be attached to the relevant section of the article. I'm hoping a consensus can be developed towards either keeping the current image, or replacing it with the image on the right, so a conclusive answer can be given to this proposal. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If the current photo has the advantage of showing her as a political leader, but the disadvantage of having low detail, we can replace it with this one:

MBelgrano (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also uploaded a new version of the current photo, with higher size and the complete portion of the photo (but perhaps we should cut the man in the background) MBelgrano (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't much like the photo above either; for the infobox image I think we should be showing clearly what Peron looked like, rather than thinking about whether it demonstrates her historical significance. The photo above is showing just one side of her face, which doesn't do much to illustrate her in my opinion. If a photo can be found of her making a speech, but is taken from a perspective that shows all of her face clearly, then I'm definitely willing to compromise with that. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for updating the image in the infobox; I find it a step-up for the previous version, since the picture quality is better and its size is bigger, and I'm not terribly fussed about the man in the background because I don't feel he is drawing attention away from the centrally-positioned Peron. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say that I appreciate the latest upload by MBelgrano. I like the newer version of her on the balcony of the Casa Rosada, and I like the third picture, with Evita's hand out.

I find this issue difficult. You see, all pictures of Evita are now historically pertinent. The picture at the top of the page shows what she looked like, as do the other pictures offered. They just show different facets. We could argue further about what era of her life should be used to demonstrate what she looked like, what hair do, which location, etc. I think that as much as we may want to deny it, much of this is just basic personal opinion. My personal opinion is that a picture of her on the balcony of the Casa Rosada giving a speech is the best picture. Thanks.

I was once advised to use the Che Guevara article as a model for this article. I notice that when deciding on an image for the top of the article, the editors chose the most famous image of Che. I don't think it has to be a choice between "iconic" and "identification." -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference with Che is the iconic photo is both an iconic one and one which clearly shows what Che looked like. With the current Peron image, I think I would struggle to identify who the subject is without some context had I never seen the image before. My support for the image up the top right is beyond just personal opinion: my reading has been that Wikipedia articles should use photos in infoboxs which clearly show what the subject of the article looked like, and I don't think one side of Peron's face does justice. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But that's just it. You don't think the side of her face depicts her well.

At any rate, your argument about the picture of Che Guevara is a fair one. If we are to include a portrait of Eva Peron in this article that gives more of a depiction of her entire face, I would recommend using the following image: http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/Eva_Peron.jpg This image is both iconic and a good depiction of Eva Peron. This is the official portrait Eva Peron herself chose. It was used on many posters, letter head, stamps, medals, etc., thoughout her life. I think it is preferable to the other facial portrait suggested. If the image at the top of this page is to be changed, hopefully someone will upload a good reproduction of this image. It may already be on Wikipedia Commons. I'll take a look. -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent find, Andrew, thank you. I do prefer your find to my suggested image; the quality is clearer, its got colour, and the fact it is an official portrait that was used to a good extent in public life does lend something of a significant status to it. And, it shows her more clearly in my opinion. :D (I know, always back to that) I'll have a look for a good reproduction as well, and get it uploaded if I find something before you. Then, it can be presented here for further discussion. Thanks again. HonouraryMix (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've uploaded the two following versions of this picture. I hope I have given the correct licensing, etc.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eva_peron_official_state_portrait_3.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eva_peron_official_state_portrait.jpg

But I'm hoping we can find better reproductions. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That image is part of the cover of the autobiography "La Razón de mi vida". Here's the complete cover. MBelgrano (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was used on the cover of her autobiography, among many, many other places. It is probably the single most famous picture of her. -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the front picture. I linked to a scan of the front cover of her autobiography. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lock page?

This article has been the subject of vandalism lately. Is a semi-lock necessary? Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I hate to link to this rubbish, but this edit is an example of what I was referring to. This page seems to be a focal point of vandalism. I wish someone would lack it so that anonymous edits were not allowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Per%C3%B3n&action=historysubmit&diff=343275825&oldid=343006840

I don't see why protection is necessary. There is vandalism, but so far the editors watching the article have been more than capable of reverting it; protection is usually only needed when the vandalism is so frequent that editors are having a hard time keeping up with it, and when the page history is almost nothing but vandalism and reversions. I see plenty of non-vandalism edits in the recent history of this page. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess what made me think that this page needs protection is that while the vandalism may not be that frequent, it is usually of a derogatory sexual nature. Some of what gets inserted into this page (like the above comments I link to) is really disgusting! -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A question re: Eva Durate/Perons films

I have also wondered how "good" an Actress was Eva Peron? In the films and I know the radio shows she made. ASre there any Eva Peron films still avalible?Baveriaboy (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You can find clips on YouTube. I've read that even Evita herself said her acting in the movies was bad. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No political post?

The article say, that she had no formal political post, but also that she was head of the ministry of labour and health? Was this not a political post?--85.226.41.216 (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the fuzzy status of Eva Peron. She had political power though she was never an elected official. She was for all intents and purposes the Vice President of Argentina, but she wasn't elected as such. Harldy anyone even remembers the name of Juan Peron's elected Vice President. Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Unknown book

There is a book listed at the bibliography that says "Ortiz, Alicia Dujovne" (so, just the author). Is the user who added it around here? It would be needed to clarify which is the name of the book, and the year and publisher.

It is the only element in the article with a maintenance tag, so it should be fixed, to keep the number of article issues at 0 MBelgrano (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be the book "Eva Peron": http://www.amazon.com/Eva-Peron-Alicia-Dujovne-Ortiz/dp/0312168276/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1274211358&sr=8-2-fkmr0 -- Andrew Olivo Parodi (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Military Relations

I have had many Spanish Class projects on Eva Peron, some of which included her relations with the Argentine Military... Yet there was not much information about this. I would like to see more information in this area become a part of this article, as it would be very helpful to students in the future if they could find this information here instead of scouring the depths of the internet and finding info after a search that takes way too long... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.95.13 (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

In "Final resting place" subsection there is a blatant case of copyright infringement in part of the text: "Juan and his third wife, Isabel, decided to keep the corpse on their dining room table. Isabel would comb Evita's hair every day, and, under pressure from Juan, lay down next to her dead body to absorb her charisma". The exact same sentence can be seen in the source provided: [8]

I haven't seen the remaining sources to see if there is also a copyright infringement but the editors who usually edit this article should take a careful look in the entire article. Since this is considered a "good article" (how did it pass is unknown to me and to any reasonable person but to God) it should be fixed as fast as possible. I want to avoid adding a coypright infringement tag so that is why I came into the talk page to warn about it. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, good and even featured articles are as vulnerable to vandalism as any other article. This sentence was included recently, and it wasn't part of the article when it was nominated and promoted. MBelgrano (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ow, what a surprise. You.

Well, my surprise for seeing this article as a good one is caused by the fact that there are several sentences without sources and photographs that are not in public domain in the United States (although they are in Argentina, they couldn't be in this article). --Lecen (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous sentence

I was going to rewrite this sentence, but I don't even know what it means.

"Therefore, a visit to Franco, with Salazar the last remaining west European authoritarian leader in power, would be diplomatically frowned upon internationally."

First of all, Salazar isn't mentioned before or linked to, so it's not clear who that even is. Secondly, was Salazar the last one in power, or Franco, or both? It seems like Salazar was from the sentence, but if so, what does that have to do with anything? It needs more clarification, so I was just wondering if anyone knew what exactly the sentence is trying to say. easytoplease (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The section is mangled. There are several other similar garbled or mistaken items in this article. Salazar was the Fascist leader of Portugal from the late '30s until the late '60s. At the time of Peron's European tour, both Franco (Spain) and Salazar (Portugal) were in power in their respective countries. I presume the passage above you cite intended to state that Peron visited (or planned to) both fascist Iberian countries.24.250.115.92 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Vainamoinen

I'll add that this article is very one-sided in its discussion and assessment of Eva Peron's Fascist leanings. There is a strong desire on the part of many Peron supporters/admirers to downplay the Fascistic elements of Peron's rule, and many historians share this view, especially in Argentina. However, many others take a less sanguine view toward the Peron era and Eva Peron. While there is little doubt that the Perons were not anti-Semitic or racial nationalists, their economic and social program was definitely corporatist, and Eva Peron's syndicalist activity is a prime example of this. Corparatist, clerical, and charasmatic, the Peron's political philosophy shared much with National Socialism and the authoritarian Falange. This article should balance the Peron apologia view with at least some mention that a very different view is held by many historians.24.250.115.92 (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Vainamoinen

This article is written for the English speaking world, obviously. In the English speaking world, "fascism" largely means only one thing: "anti-semitic," and there are many people in the US and UK who believe Evita was exactly that. This is most likely why the article focuses on stating that she was not strictly speaking fascist and certainly not anti-semitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.5.83 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No fascism doesn't only mean anti-Semitism in the Anglo-Phone world, as a clear reading of the fascist article would tell you. Fascism has not got anti-Semitic policies at the core. In Italian, until NAZI meddling, a great deal of Jews supported the fascist party and some were in the party. Likewise Franco is a fascist (despite his apologists who keep invaded his article) but he saved many Jews and has many streets disgracefully named after him in Israel. Fascism and anti-Semitism are not interchangeable. Peronism is an offshoot of fascism, just as Trotskyism is an offshoot of communism - The Mummy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.239.56 (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Be advised that many Jews supported National Socialism as well. As it is essentially Zionism. --41.151.68.225 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual Leader of the Nation

If Eva Peron was indeed created "Spiritual Leader of the Nation" by the Argentine Congress, it stands to reason that this should be included in her list of positions in the infobox. Even if she was the only holder. The position itself even has its own page. Mburn16 (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It was not a "position" (least a position thought of as to be held by successive individuals), but an honorary title adscribed personally to her. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Eva.renunciamiento.1951.ogv Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Eva.renunciamiento.1951.ogv, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistress

Why is Eva, prior to her marriage to Peron, referred to as his "mistress" ? At that time he was a widower and she was unmarried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.230.181 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose because she wasn't socially acceptable and he kept her in private, secret, for some time due to the stigma of being a former actress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.49.34 (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:EvitaInSpain.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:EvitaInSpain.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:EvitaInSpain.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Evita&Baby.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Evita&Baby.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Evita&Baby.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Too many images

Could people please keep an eye on how many images there are on this page? There are too many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.64.234 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Still in office?

The article claims that she has been "spiritual leader", whatever that might mean, until the present. Oh really? 126.214.244.236 (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to let you know, there was actually an official government ceremony where she was declared "Spiritual Leader of the Nation." As to what that means? Well, read the article about spirituality and then the article about leadership, and then put the two together and figure it out for yourself. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.93.65.84 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The word "served" is misleading. There is no such concept in Argentina as a First Lady serving, she just happens to be married to the president and is not an officer that serves. However Evita was indeed at the core of power until her death and she clearly was the spiritual leader. As a spiritual leader, and exactly because she was not an elected official with a term to serve, her death did not end her spiritual leadership. Can be compared to a superstar, let´s say John Lennon, Kurt Cobain,(pick your favorite), just because they died it does not mean that their influence is over.74.67.161.19 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "gallery" section

I have removed the gallery section of this article. The reason is as follows. First of all, this article is already heavily illustrated, and similar articles (such as the one about Che Guevara) do not have gallery sections. It's unnecessary. Second of all, some of the pictures in the gallery were not even of Eva Peron; one of them was of Patty Lupone portraying Eva Peron in the musical "Evita," and another image was simply of the theatre where the Broadway revival of the musical "Evita" is taking place. The gallery was unnecessary, and it will cost this article it's "Good Article" status if it remains. Copy Editor (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Results of 1946 election never stated

Under the section headlined "1946 Presidential election victory" there is no mention of the victory. The entire section consists of saying Juan Peron decided to run for president and discussion of Eva campaigning for him. Sure, the result is implied in the headline, but as you read the text you are picturing the campaign and the results of that campaign are never discussed.

Then, never having mentioned the results of the election, the next section immediately begins with talk of Eva departing on a world tour, without the explicit connection being made that at that point she was the first lady of Argentina. Some discussion by a knowledgable person (not me) needs to cover the electoral victory and her newfound status as first lady. Kentucho (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Early Childhood"

How old was Eva when her father, Duarte, passed away. And how do we know that: "Eva would never forget the bitter memory of having her mother and siblings thrown out of her father's funeral." This statement needs citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Casa Rosada Demonstration

The section entitled Juan Perón's arrest includes the unsourced statement "At the time of Perón's imprisonment, Eva was still merely an actress. She had no political clout with the various labor unions that supported Perón ..." The article previously stated, in a sourced statement, that before meeting Perón, Eva Duarte "began her career in politics, as one of the founders of the Argentine Radio Syndicate (ARA)." It also says that, at the time of the arrest, Eva owned part of and co-managed a radio station, had a daily radio show, and was the president of the union to which all broadcast performers belonged. Presumably, her union presidency gave her a voice within whatever labor councils existed and her radio station and show and gave her direct access to the people. Someone with more knowledge than I of the period, and of Spanish, should reconcile these two diametrically opposed images of Eva Duarte in 1945. Johhtfd (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Evita was fired immediately after Juan Peron was arrested. She wrote about this in her autobiography La Razon de mi Vida. She DID have clout while he was an officer; but she lost it all when he was arrested. Then she got it back when he was released ... and got even more when he was elected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.119.178 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Nearly half of the citations are from the same source

"Fraser and Navarro" are cited thirty-odd times, and a lot of the article is cited with their work and no other citations. Even if they are a reliable source, other sources should be brought in, especially because of the sensitivity of the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.251.57 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. Isn't it great that most of the quotes in the article come from the best, most objective, most well researched, and balanced biography on Eva Peron? And isn't it great that there are so many other references from other books and articles and websites as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.128.76 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What a joke! Reading that source it appears to me that Frazer and Navarro are describing a different country rather than the one I lived in during the whole period described. Discrepant articles are deleted from the text and references by its gate-keeper. See his YouTube clip69.9.27.73 (talk) 04:31, 16 March 20p13 (UTC)

That's because this is a researched work by historians, not the extremely biased view of someone who grew up in Argentina in an anti-Peronist family where people probably took the most outlandish hearsay about Eva Peron seriously. Julie M. Taylor writes in the book "Eva Peron: The Myths of a Woman" [9] that some of what the anti-Peronists believed about Evita was so outrageous that she couldn't believe they were repeating them to her with a straight face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.119.178 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the original statement in this section: the sad reality is that there aren't many biographies about Eva Peron to begin with, and the book "Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron" [10] is the only biography of Eva Peron written by a historian. Juan Peron is the one who has received more attention in academia and political science, whereas his more famous wife has usually been relegated to portrayals in popular culture. If you want a lot of other biographies of Eva Peron cited in this article, then please dig up the yellow journalism like "Evita: Sinner or Saint?" [11] and The Woman with the Whip. But such books are unintentionally hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.119.178 (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

English-speaking nations misunderstood Argentina's response

biographer Robert D. Crassweller claims that the English-speaking nations of North America and Europe largely misunderstood Argentina's response to the death of Perón as well as the ornate funeral she was granted

It's unclear what's meant by this. How did they misunderstand it, and how did their understanding differ from the reality? Omc (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Crassweller was referring to the different cultural responses to death. He argues that the "reality" was that Argentines were truly mourning the loss, to an unprecedented extent, an extent unknown to English speaking nations. Latin American cultures, particularly during the era when Evita died, are simply more emotive in their public mourning than Anglo Saxon nations tend to be. The Anglo Saxon nations at the time of Evita's death didn't understand how loved she was by the people of Argentina, and the style of mourning was unprecedented by Anglo Saxon standards, and so the Anglo Saxon nations interpreted that the masses were not truly mourning Evita due to their love for her, but were rather responding to the manipulative propaganda of Juan Peron. I hope this helps. (It wasn't until the death of Princess Diana, a figure sometimes compared to Evita, that the UK saw public mourning to the scale of how the Argentines mourned Evita. And the public mourning of Princess Diana also left the establishment dumbfounded; this is the plot of the movie The Queen (film).) Andrew Parodi (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)