Talk:Dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner

'Moved from History of Paraguay in to a sub-page. It was cut-pasted and may need another user to wikify it and fix broken links. The Northaptonshire pins (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC). First and original Wiki-text created by User:Calliopejen1.'

Copyright review
It looks a bit complicated to me. Here's what I observed:


 * 1) In this edit User:Calliopejen1 added a substantial amount of material, inclduing the Stronato material to History of Paraguay with the edit notice (+PD content from library of congress!) . However, I do not see any notice of attribution or identification of the source in that edit, the next few subsequent edits, or present in the article as it existed on 2 July 2014 just before removal.
 * 2) user:The Northaptonshire pins cut the material from the article and created a new article. I believe this violates our own rules for attribution. (although see below my query to MRG)
 * 3) user:The Northaptonshire pins referenced the material to Mother Earth Travel which I doubt qualifies as a reliable source.

I've tracked the original material to the Library of Congress Country Studies (Paraguay).

I'd provide a specific link, but the page says: Do NOT bookmark these search results.

Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes. The temporary file will be purged from our system in a few hours.

However, the sections correspond to the last four items in this list prior to Chapter 2

I am searching wp:RSN which has several discussions of LOC Country Studies. So far, I found three mentions:
 * 1) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75
 * 2) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80
 * 3) Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_78

The third has the phrase The _body_ of the country study may be reliable. I see nothing in RSN talking about copyright status.

However, the Library of Congress says:

''With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the online Country Studies are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use.''

However, they go on to say: As a courtesy, however, we ask that appropriate credit be given to the series.

I believe this means, at a minimum, that we need to add proper sourcing.

, given that the cut and paste was all pd material, do we need to acknowledge that it is was added originally by User:Calliopejen1? I'm thinking that since the first edit to The_Stronato_(Paraguay) is pd material from the LOC Country study, we could change the reference from Mother Earth to LOC, and add the appropriate attribution template, without the need to note that the words were in another article for some period of time?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Is this: PD-notice the best template?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the cut and paste was all PD (plus my formatting), I definitely don't need any credit. I added it before we had firm rules re: attributing PD material (you can ask me later why I don't think our current policy re pasting from PD sources is really necessary but that's a whole other can of worms... anyways now I'm always good about putting a public domain notice template as is now required), and the lack of referencing was an oversight on my part. I assume I meant to fix it later and never did.  I'll tidy up the references so that the PD attribution should be correct.  I like the PD-notice because it can be used in conjunction with references/footnotes to show exactly which portions of the articles come from elsewhere and doesn't hugely elevate non-Wikipedian authors above Wikipedian authors (who get credit in this history tab rather than the article itself This is why I think the requirement to attribute PD content on the article page is not needed ). Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Calliopejen1 Thanks! nice work.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Etymology & pronunciation of the term?
Since it's not *estronato, it looks conspicuous in Spanish, but there's not a word about it's origin. 37.47.195.14 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It turns out that Paraguayans pronounce Stroessner // instead of //… go figure. 37.47.201.148 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)