Talk:Griselda Gambaro

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Argentina

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Griselda Gambaro, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Camp info

@Chalk19: None of your edit summary makes any sense. Wikipedia doesn't require the source to be accessible, so unless you're arguing that the archive.org document is fake, the source it's representing is still citable. And of course Spare Rib and Morning Star are usable sources for opinion, the thing they were being cited for, what on earth are you talking about? If you think there aren't enough mainstream critics, you should add them! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: The original claim was [1]: "In October 1981 The Camp (1967 play) was given its British premiere in a multi-racial production by Internationalist Theatre (originally known as New Internationalist Theatre ) in London. Directed by Barry Phillips, the cast included Richard Trent, Roy Lee and Angelique Rockas. Translation by William Oliver 1971 . As Michelene Wandor drama critic for Time Out magazine wrote in her preview, "Considered one of Gambaro`s masterpieces the play belongs to, " the school of allegorical theatre of oppression, written in a society in which brutality and censorship suppress democracy and the imagination ... (the play) draws political parallels by reference to Nazi concentration camps...the theatre of the absurd and the horrors on inner nightmare".[6] The performance was warmly received by the critics of Spare Rib. Ann Morey of BBC Latin American Service, now BBC Mundo,[9][10] and Tom Vaughan of The Morning Star."

The source about "its British premiere" comes from thetricalia.com, a website that "Anyone can add a production if it’s not on the site" as stated in its homepage. Not a reliable source. So, we don't even know if it was actually "its British premiere".
"The performance was warmly received by the critics of ...". This is based in an unpublished handwritten note (unpublished archival primary source), and a couple of notes of critics of media like the newspapaer of the Communist Party of Great Britain, or a magazine of feminist activism. Why just these opinions of a couple of politically oriented periodicals appear, and no critical acclaim of well-known critics from the mainstream media? Are these sources evidence that the performance was actually not unnoticed at the time, or evidence that may be it was noticed by a just some activists because of its politics involed? Is there any secondary source about it? Moreover, this article, which is just a typed and printed copy, is mostly about the play, and not Rockas' production. The piece from Spare Rib, writes a couple of words about Rockas performance ("electric", "stunning"), but its greatest part is generally on the play anf its story, not the production.

Most of the primary sources have been uploaded on internet by two users of the Rockas Army of Socks (the globaly locked users Amfithea and Johanprof; see [2]). So far so good; but using those primary soucres in a way only to promote Rockas, where there are no secondary sources found for references, is not acceptable.

PS. Since there is an article on the play (The Camp (1967 play)) there was no reason to have this info written two times. ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19:

I agree that theatricalia is not reliable, but the other sources do seem to substantiate the claim that it is the British premiere.
What you're referring to as "unpublished" is simply a transcript of audiovisual media, no?
Are you unaware that it is common practice on Wikipedia to document theatrical productions with reactions of writers in journals and newspapers?
I understand that you're trying to clean up after a sockpuppet and that there's an article on the play, but your lack of understanding of sourcing is really getting in the way here. It seems like you're using this as an excuse to remove mainstream, sourced information about the play.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: Forget the details; my main point is that there are neither any secondary sources (say, a review article, or a book on the history of modern British theatre etc.), nor any acclaim form journalists or theatre critics of mainsteam newspapers and periodicals. I do not doubt that it was actually a good production of the play, and perhaps Rockas performance was really electric, but there is no proof that this was probably noticed from more people than some political activists of the UK ultra-left. We do have reliable info about this kind of reception, so using just a few available sources -in fact sources chosen by Rockas' socks- may distort the real thing of the production's appeal to both critics and the British public. On the other hand, the basic info on the production of the play -together with Rockas' photo -is already in the article about the play (The Camp (1967 play)); why have a duplicate of this section here? This article isn't about the play, it's about the writer. And another thing: It is reasonable to mention the first translation of the play in English, since this is the English-language WP. But why write here extensively about the fist British performance? Why not about the first Australian, New Zealandian, American, Canadian, or even Belizian? Is the English-language WP a UK-WP? I have nothing more to say; do as you wish, I won't intervene any further. Cheers. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Maybe sometimes my explanation is not effective, but I never use excuses. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19: What I still don't understand from what you're saying is why you're removing rather than editing, then. The article at this moment contains no information about The Camp! Even with the existence of a separate article on the play, it would be appropriate for the article on an author to briefly discuss some of her major works. You removed the information that this article previously did contain, which was - as you yourself said - about the play. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: I don't disagree about a brief discussion of some of her major works, e.g. opinions of well-known literary critics or historians on her plays, novels, stories, essays (=on their content, importance, value, merits as texts, innovative styles, politics). But this is something different on presenting in this article just a specific production of a play of hers in London in the early 1980s. Even if this was "its British premiere", it does not belong here, but to the article on the play, where it already is. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19: Do you not understand that we may cite information about the play to an article on a production? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)

I have restored the article ==Performance of Gambaro plays in the English language == and also added a British Council link with a profile on Michelene Wandor , who is not only a writer and critic, but has the distinction of being the first woman playwright to be staged at UK`s National Theatre, has written books and articles that are hugely influential . There is no need to explain why her preview in Time Out about The Camp is important . I have also added a reference link from The Stage ( British Newspaper Archives) which clearly states the performance was a British premiere and restored the reference links: the audiovisual transcript of the BBC Latin American broadcast , Spare Rib and Morning Star . This might encourage other contributors to add other productions. Signed Xany36 {----}

Oh, okay, so you're a sockpuppet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppet of the Rockas Army of Socks reported for investigation. ——Chalk19 (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese:

Please review what has transpired on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Griselda_Gambaro as it relates directly to Chalk19 handling of Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre :

To ::::@Roscelese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roscelese, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roscelese 1) Is it sock-puppetry ?

i)Is it sock puppetry to retrieve a deleted article from the Griselda Gambaro https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Griselda_Gambaro&action=history and restore it, as you had pointed out it contained mainstream information from Morning Star , Spare Rib , Michelene Wandor`s Time Out preview and a BBC Latin American Service broadcast (now BBC Mundo]]) about a Gambaro play, mainly The Camp. Any direct quotes related to the play. That it was accepted Wikipedia practice to include this information in both the Griselda Gamabro and The Camp Wikipedia entries ? ii) Is it sock puppetry to add a reference that verifies that Internationalist Theatre `s performance of the Camp was a British premiere and which reference was retained both in the The Camp and the Griselda Gambaro entries by Chalk19 (talk) even after my contributions were declared promotional? iii) Is it sock puppetry to add information about a very important woman writer and playwright in UK theatre Michelene Wandor who previewed The Camp in Time Out , as her use had been questioned and was described as promotional by Chalk19 (talk) and which he has deleted again iv) Is it not true that Chalk19 (talk)`s description of Morning Star and Spare Rib as far left and borders on the fascist? and not neutral? That he was told by you to add these sources to mainstream contributors.

2) Violation of Wikipedia standards of transparency and lack of knowledge about Wikipedia sourcing.

i) To ::::@Roscelese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Roscelese, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roscelese. Can you verify please that what transpired between you and Chalk19 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Griselda_Gambaro can be adequately described as Chalk19 (talk) in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea, "user Xanu36 restored a highly promotional section in the Gambaro article about Rockas. About its reason in this article, as a duplicate of the same section in The Camp article (instead of a shorter piece on Rockas' production) [4] as what actually traspired between you and Chalk19 (talk) i<Talk:Griselda Gambaro> Chalk19 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC).

ii) Is it not a direct contradiction of what transpired? You categorically described Morning STar, Spare Rib , BBC Latin American Service transcript, and Michelene`s references as mainstream contributions.

iii) Is it not true that it was Chalk19 who first deleted what you described as mainline MSM information mainly Morning Star, Spare Rib and BBC Latin American Service, and Michelene Wandor`s preview and that you ascribed to him an ignorance about Wikipedia sourcing, that was he not describing a BBC radio broadcast transcript as a unsourced written note? In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive), Chlak19 states it was me the new sock puppet who focused on two other articles of "Rockas interest": Griselda Gambaro, and The Camp (1967 play), and omits that he had deleted MSM infornation? There is a confusion about sock puppetry and real information here.

Full trascript : "This is the "new recruit" in Rockas Army of Sockes (for its history see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive). Since the main targets of the Army of Sockes, articles Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre, have been locked for users until August 3rd by Berean Hunter because of "Persistent sockpuppetry" [1] [2], the new sockpuppet has focused on two other articles of "Rockas interest": Griselda Gambaro, and The Camp (1967 play). With these contributions [3] user Xanu36 restored a highly promotional section in the Gambaro article about Rockas. About its reason in this article, as a duplicate of the same section in The Camp article (instead of a shorter piece on Rockas' production) [4], there was a discussion between myself and another user in the article's talk page. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. Also the same pattern with the rest members of the Army of Socks while writing to talk pages with lines of dashes [5]. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Comments by other users[edit] Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Possible
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "

Berean Hunter himself states "possible" .

3) There are huge issues to be addressed about Chalk19 (talk)

Signed

user Xanu36 {Xanu36 (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

IPs and users related to Rockas

and her Internationalist Theatre who have contributed to this article:

IP 194.81.222.173. Its contributions at en-WP and Commons are all about Rockas and her theatre company. Cf. this edit by the similar IP 194.83.172.121 (both from a library at Westminster; see also this claim about IPs from "libraries of the whole of the London boroughs of a Westminster, Chelsea and Kensingtonof", by the globally locked sockpuppet Kotlenci, made while trying to escape from evidence of sockpuppetry) operated then by the globally locked sockpuppet Angeliquerock.
The curently blocked (21 June 2018 "with an expiration time of 3 months", "checkuserblock-wide: 95%+ usage by sockmaster for 3 months") IP 82.1.219.135.
The globally locked sockmaster Amfithea, captain of the Rockas Army of Socks.
The globally locked master puppet Johanprof, deputy captain of the Rockas Army of Socks.
WP:SPA user Xanu36.

——Chalk19 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Editor Chalk19 has no knowledge of Wikipedia sourcing, no knowledge of what clean up is, and makes false claims on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive about me

No knowledge of what Wikipedia sourcing

@Chalk19:

1) Citing a list of sock puppets to try and divert attention about your ignorance of Wikipedia sourcing, ignorance about Wikipedia clean up, obfuscating the truth about what really transpired between you and Roscelese (talk on this Griselda Gambaro talk page and furthermore providing a false account to the SockPuppet Investigation of a) what Roscelese was berating you about and b) a false account of what I was doing will not exculpate you from the fact that you are violating Wikipedia`s standards of transparency , and that you are ignorant of Wikipedia sourcing. Neither dies citing a list of sockp[uppets invalidate the real information that was posted which was not promotional.. Wikipedia is about real information. 2) :–Roscelese (talk demolished any of your objections to the information provided by the Morning Star , Spare Rib, BBC Latin American Service and Michelene Wandor`s preview in Time Out and established them as MSM information and let me remind you that is the function of Wikipedia to disseminate information and educate. Many students of Latin American literature as well as academics would be interested in reading the response of the some UK critics to the performance of a key Griselda Gambaro play . Take note :–DocJames (talk

To repeat what Roscelese told you @Chalk19: "I agree that theatricalia is not reliable, but the other sources do seem to substantiate the claim that it is the British premiere. What you're referring to as "unpublished" is simply a transcript of audiovisual media, no? Are you unaware that it is common practice on Wikipedia to document theatrical productions with reactions of writers in journals and newspapers? I understand that you're trying to clean up after a sockpuppet and that there's an article on the play, but your lack of understanding of sourcing is really getting in the way here. It seems like you're using this as an excuse to remove mainstream, sourced information about the play."

No knowledge of what clean up is

3) :::@Chalk19: No knowledge of what clean up is? If you were really cleaning up you would have only deleted the thearicalia link and not removed mainstream information like the Morning Star , Spare Rib, BBC Latin American Service, and Michelene Wandor`s preview in Time Out . Take note :–Berean_Hunter (talk, [[User:|DocJames ]] (talk

To illustrate my point by reference to what Roscelese pointed out :

@Chalk19:

i) " What I still don't understand from what you're saying is why you're removing rather than editing, then. The article at this moment contains no information about The Camp! Even with the existence of a separate article on the play, it would be appropriate for the article on an author to briefly discuss some of her major works. You removed the information that this article previously did contain, which was - as you yourself said - about the play. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

ii) "Do you not understand that we may cite information about the play to an article on a production? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)"

You did not bother to respond to the second point as it revealed the depth of your ignorance regarding Wikipedia`s educational function and Wikipedia sourcing .

You lied on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amfithea/Archive when you described retaining the articles from Morning Star,Spare Rib BBC Latin American Service and Michelene Wandor`s preview in Time Out as "hugely promotional" for Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre

@Chalk19: i) Morning Star,Spare Rib BBC Latin American Service and Michelene Wandor`s preview in Time Out

are real information . Is Wikipedia an educational tool or not? ii) By the way there are academics fully cognizant of Wikipedia practice in Latin American Literature departments who will open up a Wikipedia account just to address an issue like this one. So accusations of one purpose sock puppetry is offensive. iii) You may also like to know that Wikipedia is trying very hard to inform its readers about womens` movements , women who have contributed to human civilization in all its aspects and so Spare Rib is a key component in discovering this and is not a far left wing rag , ask one of its founders Rosie Boycott hardly a communist <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Boycott,_Baroness_Boycott>. Take note [[User:|DocJames ]] (talk [[User:|Melcous]] (talk

Thank you User Xanu(Xanu36 (talk))

No other comment to the above trolling and abusive screed, besides this [3]. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to call me in to support you, I think you're a sock too. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: Is the above comment of yours ("I think you're a sock too") addressed to me? ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk19: No, sorry, trying to say that I, not just you, think that Xanu is a sock –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]