Talk:Guayaquil Conference

Biased
Since theres no references,im deleting the paragraph about the banquet,because its lacks neutrality,when portraying Bolivar.--Andres rojas22 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain why and in what way this is biased? I don't even understand whether you're claiming it to be biased toward or against Bolívar (or why it should be more so than toward or against San Martín).  Both men propose a toast honoring the other: this only illustrates their degree of mutual respect, I don't see what's biased in this.  (And to make my own position clear: I wrote the text of the article, I have no link to South America so you can't accuse me of prejudice or lack of neutrality, I just wanted to gain a deeper insight on a short story by Borges so I made some research on the subject.  The text of the quote was found in various seemingly independent places so I took it as fact.)  Now I presently added a few references: if you find they are insufficient, the appropriate thing to do is use the "refneeded" tag, do not simply remove the paragraph.  And if you have some reason to put in doubt the historicity of the toast or the sentences uttered, please cite your references and just reword the paragraph to make this clear ("it is sometimes claimed that (the two men said this-and-that)&hellip; but others have put fact in doubt this in doubt (with your own references)") rather than simply deleting it, which is unacceptable.  --Gro-Tsen 15:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me a vandal.The reason why i deleted that paragraph is that a touristic webpage with a section of summarized history and a webpage of some argentinian guy is not enough reference to make such a claim agaisnt Bolivar.Besides the short story of Borges you mention about the conference makes me think that your view of the subject is heavily based on that story(after all Borges was argentinian).So i will delete the paragraph again unless its better referenced.--Andres rojas22 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not call you a vandal, I called deleting the paragraph vandalism, which it is.
 * You did not even attempt to answer the paragraph above, you did not even begin to argue why the paragraph is biased, and the "bias" you claim is so un-obvious that you still haven't made it clear whether you're arguing that it's biased TOWARD or AGAINST Bolívar (or TOWARD or AGAINST San Martín), so obviously we're getting nowhere. I can only repeat what I said above: the quote only illustrates a degree of mutual respect between Bolívar and San Martín, I can't begin to imagine why you find this offensive; maybe if you cared to elaborate I might at least understand why you're being so aggressive about this.
 * But let me emphasize this in big, bold characters: even if you find this paragraph biased, you may not simply remove it . This is not how things are done on WP.  If you find the references insufficient, the appropriate thing to do is add a "refneeded" (please check out about this).  If you find the wording biased, reformulate it in a more neutral tone, or add a NPOV warning or something.  I had even suggested, above, how you might reformulate the paragraph to introduce a nuance of doubt: if you do this, I'm sure we can come to an agreement about how it should be worded.  But do not simply remove it or I will revert your edits again and if this degenerates in an edit-war we will have to ask for mediation: it will help if at least you can explain your point of view before we get that far. --Gro-Tsen 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain my point of view?then what have i've been doing?playing cards?.I told you clearly on your talk page why i say those references arent enough.I'll apreciate if you stop reverting my edits before even talking to me and then try to lecture me about how wikipedia works cause i aint no rowkie either.“you still haven't made it clear whether you're arguing that it's biased TOWARD or AGAINST Bolívar” do i have to spell it?ITS BIASED TOWARD SAN MARTIN,the references you give are pro-san martin,and the article talks almost nothing about the conference,i know its hard because they were no witneses but San Martin and Bolivar let their testimonies on diaries,letters,ect,in wich they mostly avoid detailing the interview they do talk about the opinion they have about each other,political ideas,ect.I have some books about bolivar that have some of this letters,wich could give Bolivars pov but i dont have about San Martin.In another part of the article it says that San Martin offered to fight under the command of Bolivar but Bolivar reffused,this is historacly correct but the way it is formulated in the article makes u think that Bolivar refused because he wanted the glory wich is reinforced latter hen you say that Bolivar proposed a toast calling himself one of the greatest man of america.The reason why Bolivar rejected San Martin help was that if he accepted it would have permited San Martin hold power in Peru and make his plan of instaurin a monarchy in the cono sur,Bolivar probably saw that San Martin wanted to use colombian troops for his own proyects so he refused,he wanted san Martin out of Peru to avoid a monarchic restoration and instead a republican goverment for South America.both were intelligent man and believed in what they were doing.Now,the article doesnt say anithing about this,and the 3d reference(that of the argentine jewish guy) talks very clearly in favor of San Martin that Bolivar refused because he “dint like San Martin”,its ridiculous,that speaks about how reliable is that reference.I hope i finally made my point clear and that you dont simply ignore it.Also im gonna add that im gonna start editing the article and i hope you dont revert every change i make.--Andres rojas22 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I'd like to point out that you were the one who reverted (well, deleted) my edits without offering any explanation. Now you're starting to, so now we can get somewhere, but I don't think you could reasonably expect that just deleting a paragraph with an explanation so short as "it's biased" could pass as constructive editing.  But I have no intention of systematically reverting your edits, and provided you don't simply delete material I don't see why I should.  This being said, I think we both agree that we can move on.
 * However, your presentation gives the strange impression that Bolívar and San Martín were enemies: I mean, you seem to take "biased toward San Martín" and "biased against Bolívar" as synonymous, which they are in no way, so please don't treat them as such, and if you think both are true please try to keep them apart anyway (and also try to keep both apart with "biased toward Argentina" which is again something different).
 * The point about Bolívar being committed to republics whereas San Martín wanted to call institute a monarchy is already in the article: do you find that formulation biased? Also, I don't see how the article can give the impression that Bolívar wanted to gain glory over San Martín whereas it explicitly emphasizes both men's "common goals and mutual respect"!  Also, I don't think Bolívar proposing a toast to himself (especially if he is naming himself after San Martín) as one of the greatest men of America makes him appear arrogant: it never occurred to me as such, so I doubt it would seem that way to the candid reader.
 * But if it helps appease you, how about reformulating the paragraph as follows:
 * San Martín, after meeting with Bolívar for several hours on July 26, stayed for a banquet and ball given in his honor. The following anecdote is sometimes recounted: that Bolívar proposed a toast to &ldquo;the two greatest men in South America: the general San Martín and myself&rdquo; (Por los dos hombres más grandes de la América del Sud: el general San Martín y yo), whereas San Martín drank to &ldquo;the prompt conclusion of the war, the organization of the different Republics of the continent and the health of the Liberator of Colombia (Por la pronta conclusión de la guerra; por la organización de las diferentes Repúblicas del continente y por la salud del Libertador de Colombia); however, the historical accuracy of these quotes is debatable, since their account is found primarily in sources markedly preferring San Martín over Bolívar , so they might have been fabricated to make Bolívar appear ambitious; others do not speak of the toast at all (or do not record the actual words spoken).
 * Does this seem neutral? It would be better, of course, if you could provide a reference to an lengthy account of the conference to support the last part (not mentioning the toast or not giving the actual words). --Gro-Tsen 01:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * “a reference to an lengthy account of the conference to support the last part (not mentioning the toast or not giving the actual words).” this would be the more convenient, cause it doesnt make sense expanding that paragraph, even if it makes it more neutral the article must talk about how the conference wass a crussial point in the history of south america and the strugle for freedom not what they said in some party after that.--Andres rojas22 21:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)