Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas

Some sections in this article should be rewritten under a neutral point of view
For example, the Second Governorship title feats sections like "totalitarian regime" or "state terrorism" which show an anti-Rosist bias. Their main source is a short book written by a British militaryman and Ph.D. of the University of London, prior to the Malvinas War. Novishock (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article should avoid unnecessary emotive language, but Wikipedia neutrality does not require the article to avoid stating that he was a dictator if he was a dictator. Why would the British author be expected to be biased BEFORE the war? AnonMoos (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, "farce", "docile", "blatant" are emotive and unnecessary, especially when they are not presented as views of sources, but as if they are objective (though I harbour doubts that they should be included in the intro at all, given they are obviously opinion). Rewriting and more sources needed overall. AllenY99 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "an enduring public perception among Argentines as a brutal tyrant" is but elaborate weasel wording. Describing "Revisionism" (which lacks any form of encyclopedic definition in this article, in any case) as anti-semitic, authoritarian and racist lacks reliable sourcing - so does the claim that the mazorca "killed thousands of citizens". The relation between the repatriation of Rosas' remains and dirty war apologia is outright bizarre and unfounded. Mollejasaurio (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I find the whole article a farce. There is no citation and lots of biased opinion. Bass-Kuroi (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is way too biased
The entire article is useless for historian purposes, as it has no quotes and it’s clearly condemning Rosas without explaining why he is a controversial figure. 190.245.114.34 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)ndre


 * Yes, it is disgraceful; they do exactly the same with Hitler and Mussolini; instead of being neutral and showing them as Christian gentlemen, they pretend they are scoundrels. If I were you I would found an institute to revise history.  You could call it the Instituto Juan Manuel de Rosas.Ttocserp 08:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Allegations of bias were addressed during the Featured Article evaluation, and then extensively during subsequent actions taken due to edit-warring by editors promoting a hagiographic view of Rosas, and in previous discussions here. As detailed in those incidents, the language used in the article is based firmly in the consensus of reputable historians, as detailed in the citations, notes, and subhead links. &bull; Astynax talk 17:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Did they do irony? Ttocserp 21:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)