Talk:May Revolution

Cleanup

The timeline section of the article seems to have been translated from Spanish with the help of a Spanish-English dictionary, but without the help of a thorough understanding of English. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject (and don't know the source text), so I can't figure out what was meant in a number of places. --Carnildo 03:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have come from es. - mako 05:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

State exactly what you don't get, and I might be able to help (I did the original translation from es:Revolución de Mayo. SpiceMan 07:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Mako's cleanup seems to have answered everything. --Carnildo 07:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The footnotes included quotes and translations of the books from which I took the info, as most of them are in Spanish and may be hard to get outside Argentina. This was done according to WP:NOENG, but as two users have complained at the 2º FAC, and a recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 46#Should WP:V say that non-English text and translation should be provided in a footnote? (March 2011) opposed making it mandatory, I will remove them. I left a copy of the last revision before start removing them at User:Cambalachero/May Revolution, in case someone needs to check a particular reference (have in mind that the number of a specific reference may change if some references are added or removed from the article, so look for the sentence and author instead) Cambalachero (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit July 2011

Points noted that go beyond the scope of a copyedit:

• In May_Revolution#International_causes: "the colonies were restricted to trade only with their own metropolis": the word "metropolis" makes no sense in this context and the source gives no clue as to what could be meant. The most it says is that Spain might be unwilling to open this market, a much weaker statement. I have tagged it. --Stfg (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Metropolis" is a word that, besides the modern meaning (a huge city), has another meaning in a historical context: a city or country with colonies. It is mentioned at the metropolis article. In the context of the phrase, Spain is the metropolis of its overseas colonies, and the word helps to avoid being repetitive.

Thanks, I didn't know that. But I think the use of this term is inappropriate here. It's too specialised for an encyclopedia rather than a textbook. By the way, the colonialism article uses the term metropole, rather than metropolis, but I think it unwise to use that term too. It's not well known and we can't usefully link to the metropole article because it talks only about the British empire (erroneously, I believe). The wiktionary definition of metropole uses the term "parent state", and I've used that for now. This allows me to remove the {{Clarify}} tag, though I still think you're saying something stronger than the source.

(Plese can we keep each bullet here as a separate thread, else things will soon get complicated). --Stfg (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, I will stand aside for the moment, and wait until you end the review. Then, I will fix, clarify or explain each thing that's needed. Discussions in bulleted ideas get out of control at the 4º or 5º reply. Cambalachero (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Kaufmann reference is available in Google Books, but no link has been provided to it. I expect the same will be found for many other of the references. Such links are very desirable, preferably as page links. --Stfg (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

As for google books, is that a good idea? I did not include links because WP:ELNEVER forbids to links to sites hosting copyright violations under any circumstances, and Google Books is already having copyright-related problems for this (see Google Books#Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues). Cambalachero (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't thinkk the How-to would have been included in a Wikipedia Content Guideline if this were a real issue, but I agree it's best to be safe about this, and it's voluntary anyway. I will find the ISBN for the Kaufmann book and put it in though. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Now done. The 1951 original has no ISBN, but I've provided that of a 1967 edition I believe to be a reprint - it has the same pagination. This will enable people to locate copies. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• In May_Revolution#National_causes: "A small secret society of criollos, composed of politicians as Manuel Belgrano and Juan José Castelli, and military as Antonio Beruti or Hipólito Vieytes, supported this project". "As" cannot be used like this: do you mean "such as" or "consisting of"? Also, how are we to understand the "or" in ths sentence? --Stfg (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Same section: "Britain ... had a strong stance in the Portuguese Empire". Stance in what sense? --Stfg (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• In May Revolution#Cisneros government (last paragraph), I've tagged a "he" that could refer either to Cisneros or to Romero. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Same section: the 1st paragraph says "Álzaga was not freed, but his sentence was commuted to house arrest" but the next paragraph speaks of "the pardon that Martín de Álzaga and others had received after serving a short time in prison". Do the sources contradict each other, or what? If they do, this needs to be pointed up. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• In May_Revolution#May_week, big paragraph: "the most recent newpapers reported that members of the Supreme Central Junta had been refused". "Refused" is meaningless here and I can't figure out what is meant. By the way, the first half of this paragraph lacks citations. See also the next bullet --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(re "refused") OK, I found "rechezados" in the Spanish article. "Dismissed" will do. --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• While trying to figure out what the sentence in the previous bullet was saying, I went back to May_Revolution#International_causes, where the last sentence reads "The Supreme Central Junta was eventually defeated and replaced by a Regency Council based in Cadiz.[11]". Ref 11 is Shumway, p. 19 and this page in Shumway says nothing like it. Shumway's book doesn't use the expression "Regency Council" at all and doesn't mention the Junta of Seville as far as I can discover. What p.19 says is "The Spanish Cortes, or parliament, refused Joseph's rule and formed a government in exile in Cádiz". Our article makes no use of the words Cortes or parliament at all. I have no idea what to make of this. Finally, the sentence in May_Revolution#International_causes says that the Supreme Central Junta was defeated, while the lead section says that it dissolved itself. They can't both be right. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• That's now two verifications failed out of two attempted, so I've tagged the article with {{cite check}}. Sorry, but I think it's needed. --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• in May_Revolution#Friday.2C_May_18_and_Saturday.2C_May_19: "Coffeehouse of Catalans" and the "Fonda of Nations": better to provide their Spanish names (in italics). Fonda is not English anyway (= tavern or inn). --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sunday, May 20: "secured the keys of all entrances": did they lock the doors, or else how did they "secure the keys"? --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Monday, May 21: "At 3:00 pm, preparations were started for the cabildo." The paragraph does not make sense like this. What the Spanish wikipedia article says is: "A las tres, el Cabildo inició sus trabajos de rutina...". I have translated that more closely, as the paragraph now does make sense. --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Friday, May 25: ",,, and made the members responsible for any changes". Perhaps made the Junta responsible...(?) And responsible for changes to what? --Stfg (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Consequence, 1st paragraph: "Until then, the conception of the common good prevailed: while royal authority was fully respected, if an instruction from the crown of Spain was considered detrimental to the common good of the local population, it was half-met or simply ignored.[16]" Ref 16 is Shumway page 3, which makes no mention of common good. It interprests no cumplo as meaning "do whatever I want". It is really important not to load your own conceptions on to the sources like this. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Historical perspectives, paragraph 3: Was Bartolomé Mitre really a romantic author of the 1830s? He was only born in 1821! --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Revolutionary purposes: "The purpose of the deception would have been to gain time to strengthen the position of the patriotic cause and avoid reactions that may have led to a revolution, on the grounds that monarchical authority was still being respected and that no revolution had taken place." This makes no sense, since a revolution has taken place. I have changed it to "The purpose of such a deception would have been to gain time to strengthen the position of the patriotic cause and avoid reactions that may have led to a counter-revolution, by making it appear that monarchical authority was still being respected and that no revolution had taken place." Is this what is meant? If not, please clarify. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Same section: '... he expressed support for the Junta, but under the condition that "...the behavior is consistent, and that [the] Capital [is] retained on behalf of Mr. Dn. Ferdinand VII and his legitimate successors."[121]'. Ref 121 is Kaufmann, p. 59, but nothing like it is there. In fact, the phrase "legitimate successors" does not occur in the whole book (search attempted in Google books). --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The same section and the next suddenly switch from the article's style of short footnotes referring to full citations in the Bilbliography section, to placing full citations inline. This needs to be corrected before re-submitting for FA. --Stfg (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• One difficulty for the reader of this article is that too many names are mentioned. For example, near the end of May 22 we read:

"The priest Juan Nepomuceno Solá then proposed that provisional command should be given to the Cabildo, until the formation of a governing junta made up of representatives from all populations of the Viceroyalty. His motion was supported by Manuel Alberti, Azcuénaga, Escalada, Argerich (or Aguirre) and others."

and neither Escalada nor Argerich/Aguirre are mentioned again in the article. Why are they notable for the purposes of this article, while the "others" are not? I have not made any changes to things of this nature, but you might wish to consider trying to restrict the article to naming people who did something significant in their own right during the May Revolution, beyond merely supporting or voting for what others did. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I have started working with some of the things pointed. Some clarifications:

• Martín de Álzaga was not legally freed, but being sentenced to house arrest, with the "house" being the mansion of one of the wealthiest men in the city (rather than a common jail), is basically the same thing; this kind of men do not really need to leave their homes to manage their business. In any case, the later point still stands: it was a very soft sentence, compared with the beheads at the Upper Peru for a similar action, and the americans resented Cisneros for this. I will clarify this.
• The "Regency Council" is the "Consejo de Regencia", which called later for the formation of the Cortes of Cadiz. The problem here is that there are only books in Spanish about this topic, English books mention all this issues in the broadest of terms. I have unified all mentions to this body as "Council of Regency", as mentioned in Supreme Central and Governing Junta of the Kingdom#The Council of Regency of Spain and the Indies. As for the defeat, there is no contradiction: the Junta was a Spanish government body, defended by Spanish armies, but not an army itself. The defenders of the Junta were defeated, and the Junta dissolved itself as a result (meaning, they did that before the victors ordered them to do so). Again, I will clarify.
• "secured the keys of all entrances" means to collect and have with themselves all the physical keys of the fort, so that they couldn't be trapped inside, and in case of a trap they could leave by an door they could reach. I changed "secure" for "seize".
• As for Mitre, the mentioned authors were more related to the 1830 as a "generation" rather than as a temporal time frame (like hippies with the 1960s). This literary movement, which started in 1937, was joined years later by Mitre, who was the one who took the ideas of the group to their most prominent expression. Mitre did not write the book in the 1830, but did not came out of nowhere to do so. However, it may be unadvisable to clarify too much here, as it must be a summary of nformation more detailed at the fork. Mitre is considered part of the "37' Generation", even if not as a founding member, so the text as it is is not really saying inaccurate things.
• As for the "Mask of Ferdinand VII", a change of government is not in itself a revolution, it has to involve a paradigm shift, or a change in the type of government itself. For a colony where everything (not just politics, but also economy and society) is marked by the dependence to the King, cutting relations with the king is a revolution. So, when I explain that the doctrine of the "Mask of Ferdinand VII" says that the Junta claimed that they did not do any revolution, it means that they claimed that the change of government was only that, a change of government, and that everything would stay as always; while secretly plotting the revolutionary changes to declare independence and replace the monarchy with a republic. Yes, I know that the doctrine itself makes little sense, but that's another thing. I did not came up with that explanation, I'm just describing it.

Thanks again for taking the time for the review, I will work with all the points mentioned Cambalachero (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's looking good so far. In the case of Martín de Álzaga, it may just be the word "pardon" that is slightly problematic. I think you tell his story clearly enough.

I shall stand aside in turn and wait to see what you do now, but will keep watching and we can discuss when you're done. Regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not italicizing "cabildo"

This is primarily an informational note to anyone exmining this article's compliance with WP:MOS. While copyediting I considered italicising the terms "cabildo" (when used generically, as opposed to the expression "the Cabildo") and "open cabildo", but did not, becuase a search for these terms on Google Books and Google Scholar seemed to show that the literature doesn't italicise either. --Stfg (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I know it sounds "Spanish", as it is a Spanish word after all, but I searched for "Cabildo" at Dictionary.com, and seems to be an accepted English word as well. Cambalachero (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on May Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707103640/http://www.me.gov.ar/efeme/25demayo/index.html to http://www.me.gov.ar/efeme/25demayo/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on May Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327231126/http://www.revista2010.com.ar/entrevistas/Entrevista-a-Felipe-Pigna-y-Norberto-Galasso--El-deber-de-rescribir-la-historia.php to http://www.revista2010.com.ar/entrevistas/Entrevista-a-Felipe-Pigna-y-Norberto-Galasso--El-deber-de-rescribir-la-historia.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Date format and English variant

Hello. I'd like to create a consensus about changing the date format of this artice to DMY (e.g. 25 May 1810 instead of May 25, 1810, as that is what is used in Spanish and most of our other articles about Argentine history. Additionally, I suggest using Oxford spelling, as it uses "z" in words such as organization, which is closer to the Spanish organización. While American English also uses this spelling, the UK and Argentina share a significant history, IMO making Oxford spelling a good compromise..--Marginataen (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, it's been a bit more than a week. If nobody has anything against it, I'll probably change the date format to dmy in a week or so.--Marginataen (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've changed it now. Merry Christmas :) Marginataen (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)