Talk:Elvira Roca Barea

Expanding on the common charactertistics of empire-phobic discourse
If it is considered relevant I can expand the summary of the book or include the common charactertistics of empire-phobic discourse.

Any source about "peer-reviewed book" ?
The afirmation , a peer-reviewed book: "Imperofobia y Leyenda Negra: Roma, Rusia, Estados Unidos y el Imperio Español"

needs a source or a demonstration. The peer-review process is unusuall for historical essays, and more very unusual for Siruela printers.

In sciences (human and social too) a book reediton is a new version with some aditions or corrections, not a simple reprint.

She isn't a historian, she's philologist with a master on Middle Age Lit. See Spanish version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.147.214 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have changed it to a review section which includes all responses to her book. There are many more, both positive and negative, so this section can be expended considerably.Harlyn35 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok wanting to avoid an edit war here, can someone please explain to me how "Criticism" is more according to WP:MOS than Critical Review, when we are dealing with positive and negative reviews of her work? Ill leave it for a couple of days, but I'm expecting some debate and engagement here not obstinate reverting. Harlyn35 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No reason for capitalization in "Review". Criticism is fine, both in English and Spanish. I wonder what's the reason to give more visibility (in order of precedence and with the inclusion of "neon light" quote boxes) to a fiction writer such as Vargas Llosa rather than to scholars. Particularly if the purpose is to reflect the judgement of the "non-fictional qualities" (qualities of "rigorous scholarship" [sic]) offered by the essay. As the quote of Vargas Llosa is directly sourced by Vargas Llosa, I would tweak the quote removing the judgment value about the work's scholar value and contextualise the rest of the quote as a judgement value strictly regarding the quality of the prose, where Vargas Llosa is expected to have something valuable to say (I would also relocate it).--Asqueladd (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

After 3 months of being satisfied with an article practically written with the sole objective of disparaging this woman, now you object to a review by a major world figure of the Spanish speaking world and a nobel prize winner. Lets keep it real, man.Harlyn35 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC) :::::User:Asqueladd P.S.criticism is not fine. If you think it is you are not a native English speaker.Harlyn35 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am not a "native English speaker" and I don't pretend to be one. Figuring it out is not rocket science. But I am also educated enough to read a dictionary: Criticism: the analysis and judgement of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work. In addition, whoever native English language speaker introduced that combo of dogwhistles ("Far-left", "mysoginist") deforming an already non-valuable review (of something that happens not to be the topic for this particular article, which it is ERB and her work and not the review of a review) authored by a no-name (an "endocrinologist" with no expected expertise in any of the topics in review) further adding personal stuff of his/her own to suit an agenda surely should know it is "not fine" vis-à-vis the application of WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE. If the scholar community is allegedly so torn on this work, let's give prevalence in the critical reception to reviews authored by actual scholars, not by celebrated novelists or unknown endocrinologists. What should we keep real, mate? The fantasy about Vargas Llosa being part of any sort of "academic community" devoted to historical research?Asqueladd (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

We best seek the input from other editors - ideally non-Spanish English-speakers who don't have strong feelings about this particular academic either way. The use of "Criticism" is Spanglish in this context. A dictionary is sometimes not enough to understand how a language is used in practice. You are talking to a native speaker but check it with any other Wikipedian you are in touch with and who knows the language. Your colorful and imaginative re-interpretation of Wikipedia rules seem like a very crude attempt to justify turning this article into a character assassination, as divergent as possible from the far more complete Spanish version on which it is based. I have come across it tangentially but Wikipedia must remain neutral in the way it treats academic figures. We cannot consider an academic "controversial" because we dislike them. All acclaimed writers have detractors and technically all are "controversial". To "give precedence" to critics because we happen to agree with them and tailor criteria to our own views is not acceptable. I do not aim to remove Villacanas' opinion on the basis of him not being a historian but a philosopher and far-left ideologue of the Podemos party nor on the basis of the rather surreal invective in his essay, calling Roca Barea things like Zionist, anti-Zionist, sarracene, pro-American, imperialist, anti-British etc. The Spanish version is complete and unbiased giving wide coverage to all opinions on her work - both positive and negative. I came across a highly POV article here which basically called her a lying school teacher who claims to be an academic and wrote an ahistorical book full of lies. And you have been following this article for the past months, being a Spanish speaker and knowing full well what key facts and sources were omitted and have done nothing about it. Sorry, it doesn't cut it.Harlyn35 (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC) ::::::::Incidentally here is a rather balanced article on the Villacanas-Barea controversy. I suggest you read it rather than so aggressively take one side. What is clear is that there seems to have been some personal agro between the two.https://blogs.diariovasco.com/correo-historia/2019/09/02/reflexiones-historicas-sobre-la-imperiofobia-la-imperiofilia-y-la-historiafobia/ Harlyn35 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall having "taken one side" "very agressively" in this talk page. I just reread myself and I see three obvious statements: i) English-language meanings of "Criticism" include the assessment on the merits and faults of a literary work, ii) in what scholar assessment is concerned, Vargas Llosa is not an authority vis-à-vis the historiographical scholarship bit on "intellectual history" and/or "black legend" and/or "Early Modern history" (maybe for style and literary "compellingness"?). iii) Using rhetorical slander from an endocrinologist who claims not to be an historian nor anything but a physician giving his opinion to build your own personal smearing about a third party author out of sheer WP:SYNTH is "not ok". But yeah, whoah, "very aggresive" compared to a single purpose account who just called someone a "misogynist" and "far-left ideologue" accusing other editors of "colorful and imaginative re-interpretations of Wikipedia rules", of being "character assassins", et. al. PS: Indeed, Roca Barea is a high-school teacher, a scientific researcher on classical and medieval literature, and... you guessed it, an essayist. I don't have problems with high-school teachers. Do you? ERB being a high-school teacher doesn't detract her from being a noted philologist. And by the way, Villacañas happens to be a full professor specialised in the history of philosophy, the history of political ideas and the history of iberoamerican thought. His scholar commentary in regard of the nature of the "historical narrative" and "ideas" promoted by ERB in her work looks very much pertinent. I do not know where did you get the crackpot idea he is not an adecquate source for the purposes he is currently used.--Asqueladd (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I came across this article accidentally. You, however, have been involved in editing it for months and have been fine with an extremely unbalanced version. You were fine with "claims to have taught at Harvard" (!!!). You were fine with not one award mention, not one mention to her success, not one mention of the dozens of positive reviews she received from noteworthy figures in academia. Please do not feign neutrality here. It is pointless. Only now balance is returning you are complaining because one of the few Nobel Prize Winners of Latin America, a leading academic figure of the continent "is not a professional historian". As for Villacanas, (a totally unknown figure outside Spain and apparently pretty unknown within Spain until he wrote a book dedicated to attacking Roca Barea) no one is claiming he is not an adequate source. I was using him to explain to you how you are behaving here. All credible sources related to reception of her work are adequate. As for "criticism": Is this heading used for any other academic or scientific figure on Wikipedia showing both positive and negative reviews? For movies the term used in Wikipedia is Critical Reception. How about works of academia? Can we check that it is in accordance with MOS. Thank you.Harlyn35 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read what you have written you are basing your position on how the balance should be reflected (that is, when it comes to answer the reasoning I have put here to relocate and filter information) on attacking you interlocutor based on them having edited the entry before. It is challenging to remain engaged into this discussion under those circunstances. Regarding what you mention about the bio, there are some doubts in that regard. IIRC I read she dropped that claim (that she was "enseñante y docente" [sic] in Harvard University) from the book jacket of the last editions of her "magnum opus", probably because it may qualify as an undue embellishment of her CV as "enseñante y docente" is somewhat weasel in the context of English-language names for academic roles in the US). I don't care that much about it, either way. As far as I am concerned until actual sources shed light on the topic going further than those than uncritically repeating her CV, you can phrase that passasge as you like.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice... I hope you are drafting the same section in the articles of all 200 figures of politics and academia who signed that manifesto. Why don't you start with the historian specialized in Spanish history and European Fascism Stanley G. Payne? Frankly, I'm not a very active Wikipedian but I did not expect this type of editing from "seasoned" wikipedians. Surely admins have picked up on it by now??! Harlyn35 (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"Can a book of rigorous scholarship be entertained?"- The English is extremely poor. Biased articles like this needs strong editing. Sanningar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanningar (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Continued attempts at character assassination
Asqueladd please adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:ATTACK required for biographies of living persons. I have somewhat added context and neutrality to your new section but it is contrary to WP:MOS. You have not been able to deal with a neutral article nor resist the temptation to add a section designed to call her a "fascist". I continue to remind you that no historian on Wikipedia has a "criticism" section. This article remains hostage to one or two individuals with an agenda against this lady. Not even Samuel P. Huntington, probably one of the most vilified and criticized historians in the modern era, has a criticism section. I'm hoping for a coherent argument, which is yet to come, but this has to go or has to be taken to arbitration. I'm pretty sure on what the result will be. Harlyn35 (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? I did not myself named the "criticism" section (I just somewhat questioned the need for rename it and I haven't even been particularly vocal about it; really, read the talk page because you may be psychologically projecting) and I have not called her a "fascist". She just was one of the signatories of a public manifesto promoted by the FNFF decrying the Historical Memory Law. Independent sources cover that. It is factual and you just happen to dislike it (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I certainly will deal with Stanley G. Payne later. The info of that entry is certainly a bit rusty.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck through edits by a sock, removed one with no reply. Doug Weller  talk 14:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Balance
I have gone through the edits to this article and it is very alarming. I'm taking this to relevant noticeboards since it seems to be a protracted issue. Boquerones (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)