Talk:Platine War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contemporary views on the war

On the war:

"September 30th. - [...] The free navigation of these [rivers] is essential to her [Brazil] interests. One chief objective in the policy of Rosas, however, was been to kept them closed to all foreign commerce, that the trade of the confederacy might centre exclusively in Buenos Ayres; and thus to enrich and aggrandize her, at the sacrifice of both Brazil and her sister republics of the confederation [the other Argentine provinces]. All negotiation on the part of the court of Brazil, to secure free access to the interior of the Empire by the tributaries of the Plata, having proved abortive, that government had determined to try the effects of arms." (p.239)

Comment by Lecen: this paragraphy follow very close to what is despicted in Platine War#The Empire of Brazil reacts section.

"General Urquiza, the President of the State of Entre-Rios and Corrientes, long the principal coadjutor of Rosas, and the most successful and distinguished of his soldiers, weary of his tyranny and selfish policy, has entered in compact with Brazil to aid in the accomplishment of her purpose. The first objective to be attained is the overthrow of Oribe, and the consequent relief of Montevideo from siege; and thus to lay the basis to a joint attack on Buenos Aires. Urquiza, with a force of fifteen of twenty thousand Entre-Rians and Corrientans, is approaching in one direction; and the Baron of Caxias, having an equal force of Brazilian infantry and artillery, in another: while a squadron, consisting of a frigate, two sloops of war and three steemers, under the command of Admiral Greenfell, has arrived from Rio, and is at anchor near us." (p.239)

Comment by Lecen: The author says that Urquiza was to aid Brazil, not the opposite. And that the allied forces were divided in two armies that would, in a joint attack, conquer Buenos Aires. This can be seen at Platine War#The allied army advance. Belgrano has insisted on saying that Brazl was nothing more than an almost-forgotten participant on a conflict between Argentine caudillos. Interesting enough, that is not the view of someone who saw the war on first hand,

On Rosas so called "democratic" government:

"For years, it has been the custom of Rosas formally to tender to the representatives of the confederation, the resignation of his office as Minister of Foreign Affairs [the then-de facto office of the head of state of Argentina], pleading to be released from it, on the grounds of the great burden of the charge, his advancing age, broken constitution, and declining health. This is invariably followed by the most laudatory and fulsome panegyrics, from the leading member of the House, upon his character - the value of his past services, and the necessity of hteir continuance; and the unanimous resolution that he shall still fill the office: it being well known that not a member dare - even if he has the secret will - to move or second the acceptance of the profered resignation. The Archivo Argentino [Argentine Archives], or Government register, printed in English, and French, and Spanish, and sent widely over the civilized world, is filled with the record of these political farse. This year, however, Urquiza, as the President or Governor of Entre-Rios and Corrientes, promptly accepted the resignation" (p.239)

Comment by Lecen: Anyone who have seen Belgrano's edits will remember that he tried to insert an information that said that Rosas never wanted the office and tried to resign several times as he was someone that was doing that out of patriotism. As you can see, that was Rosas's farse to try to give an appearence of legitimacy to his dictatorship and noe one else was allowed (or was crazy enough) to go against it.

"The terms 'Unitarian' and 'Federal,' designate the original parties of the confederation, the first being applied to those who are in favor of a consolidated government, similar to that of the United States, and the last to those who advocate that of the compact at present existing. Under Rosas, the Unitarian party became outlawed and in effect exterminated." (pp.239-240)

Comment by Lecen: Exterminated. That's the word he used. Exterminated. That's why there were 20,000 people murdered by Rosas. Belgrano said that only "80" were murdered. That wouldn't be called an "extermination".

On the course of war:

"October 6th - Affairs on shore are rapidly approaching a crisis. Oribe, who led his troops westward some days ago, to meet the advancing force of Urquiza, has been driven back into what has been so long his besieging camp ; and, cut off from both the interior and the river, he is virtually the besieged instead of the besieger. Deserted already by some of his troops, who have joined the advancing enemy; limited in the supply of provisions, for those who remain, and daily more and more encircled, he must speedly capitulate, or fall in an unequal conflict." (p.244)

"October 10th - The pacification hoped for, has actually taken place, by the unconditional surrender of Oribe, with his entire force, amounting to to some fifteen thousand men to Urquiza." (p.246)

As anyone may have noticed, these were all written in the present tense, not past. They were taken from the journal of a eyewitness who was present during the conflict. The man is the American Admiral Charles Samuel Stewart of the U.S. navy. He published it as a book in 1856. Anyone is free to read the online edition in here.

In other words, Belgrano insists on presenting a view not even shared by contemporary nationals from neutral and uninvolved countries in the conflict. Of course that Belgrano may say that the United States was also involved in his so-called international conspiracy to blacken Rosas's image to posterity. In fact, the American government was even capable of asking one of its citizens to write a journal during the war only so that 150 yeas later people would consider the "just", "noble" and "democratic" Rosas a tyrant?

If that is the case, that was a well made conspiracy. Because the historian John A. Croy on his book "The epic of Latin America" has a chapter entitled "Juan Manuel Rosas: tyrant of the Argentine" (p.580), while other Argentine leaders have chapters such as "Sarmiento: Civilian President" (p.599) and "San Martin: protector of Peru" (p.470). The one devoted to Emperor Pedro II of Brazil is called "The Democratic Emperor of Brazil" (p.531).

Another book, "Caudillos in Spanish America, 1800-1850", has a chapter devoted to Rosas called "Juan Manuel de Rosas: Argentina, 1829 - 1852" (p.241) and a sub-chapter entitled "Conservative dictator" (p.250). Isn't odd that every single English-speaking historian considers Rosas a ruthless tyrant? Isn't this the Wikipedia in English? Why Belgrano's view, which is not shared by people who lived the war nor historians in English-speaking countries should have any weight in this article?

P.S.: According to historian Joseph Criscenti in his book "Sarmiento and his Argentina": "Another failing of Urquiza, Sarmiento noted in his Campaña, was his demonstrated unreliability as an ally and anti-Brazilian stance. In the recent campaign against Rosas, Urquiza had shown little respect for the Brazilians and their contributions to the anti-Rosas campaign. Brazil had furnished half the troops at Monte Caseros, yet the Brazilians were not mentioned in the official battle report on Monte Caseros, which Sarmiento and Mitre had written as directed. Sarmiento felt obliged to explain to the Brazilian commander in writing that references to the Brazilians at Monte Caseros in the official batle report had been surpressed."

And continues: "At Palermo Urquiza and the Brazilian representatives [ led by Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná ] had even exchanged threats of war. Urquiza was then assuring the Uruguayan government of his aid should it break its treaties with Brazil. What Sarmiento failed to mention was that Brazil was also disturbed by talk at Palermo of including Uruguay in the new Argentine confederation. Sarmiento concluded that Urquiza did not apreciate Brazil's importance and power and had abandoned the idea that Argentine exiles had nurtured an of an 'alliance of interests' with Brazil. The porteños, however, had extended every courtesy to the Brazilians when they entered the city after Monte Caseros, during their stay there, and when they left. Sarmiento himself had nothing but praise for Pedro II and the Brazilian troops." (p.119) No wonder that a few Argentine historians might turn down Brazilian presence in the war and perceive it as an internal conflict: everything was made in the official adresses to hide Brazilian participation. --Lecen (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources do not "cancel" each other, and modern authors from more than a century afterwards are equally uninvolved with the conflict. We may add this into the global perspective, but not decide that "this source is right, therefore the others are wrong". Even more, first-hand reports from eyewitness are considered primary sources, whenereas secondary ones are preferred in Wikipedia. MBelgrano (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? Let's see what the Argentine José Luis Bustamante who also witnessed the war on first hand and publish a book called "Bosquejo de la historia civil y política de Buenos Ayres, desde la batalla de Monte-Caseros" in 1856 has to say about it:

"La Batalla de Monte Caseros el 3 de Febrero de 1852, cambió en uno dia la faz politica e social de los pueblos argentinos, especialmente la de Buenos Ayres, teatro principal del Gobierno despótico del general Rosas. En pocas horas de combate desapareció ante las armas del Grande Ejército Aliado de Argentinos, Orientales y Brazileiros aquel poder sangriento que por dos decadas pesaba sobre los pueblos del Rio de la Plata."

"Los ultimos cañonazos disparados en aquel dia memorable anunciaban que alli terminaba el reinado ominoso de aquella tiranía, verdadeiro flagelo de la humanidad y que con sus reuinas se sepultaban sus elementos todos, su sistema y sus medios de accion, abrindo paso al triunfo de la liberdad que le habia combatido sin cesar en los campos de batalla y en la prensa.

"Diez e siete años de la suma del poder público, de dictadura la mais espantosa en los tiempos modernos habra relajado y corrumpido los vinculos de la sociedad, roto Y aniquilado los resortes de la maquina publica. Las leyes conculadas, violadas todas garantias, la vida Y la propriedad del ciudadano bajo la accion continua del cadalso, la proscripcion, el puñal y la confiscacion, elementos privativos del aquele Gobierno tan sómbrio como él del Dr. Francia tal feroz como el Neron." (pp.III-IV) --Lecen (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I translated it into English, a fun task since Spanish is, but not enough, close to my language, Portuguese:

Translation: "The Battle of Monte Caseros in 3 February 1852, changed in one day the political and social face of the Argentine towns, especially the one of Buenos Aires, main theater of the despotic Government of general Rosas. In few hours of combat that bloody power that for over two decades weighed on the towns of the Rio de la Plata disappeared before the arms of the Great Allied army of Argentineans, Orientals [Uruguayans] and Brazilians.

Translation: "The last cannon shots in that memorable day announced there that the ominous reign of thattyranny had ended, a true scourge of humanity and that with his ruins was buried all its elements, its system and its means of action, aopening the way to the triumph of freedom which had fought it incessantly in the battlefields and the press."

Translation: "Seventeen years of la suma del poder público [the sum of the public power], of the most frightful dictatorship in the modern times had relaxed and corrupted the bonds of society, broken and annihilated the means of the public machine. The laws distorted, all [civil rights] guarantees violated, the life and the property of the citizen under the continuous action of the scaffold, the privative outlawing, dagger and confiscation, elements of that Government as dark as the one of Dr. Francia as as ferocious as the one of Neron."

As you can see, Rosas was considered a very democratic and nice person on his day. Also, anyone who saw Belgrano's edits will remember that he used la suma del poder público as a way of hiding the word "dictatorship". There it is. An Argentine of the 19th century tell us now that la suma del poder público is nothing more than "dictatorship". --Lecen (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with MBelgrano that sources don't "cancel" each other out, but I do agree with Lecen that the commonest English translation of Rosas' position in the literature, both then and now, is a "dictator". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's the point, Hchc. Belgrano's sources could be used, indeed, to reveal different positions, albeit a minority, in the article devoted to him: Juan Manuel de Rosas. If he wants to also present other views, again, minority views, toward the dispute between Unitarians and Federalista he may do that on Argentine Civil War. The problem is that he made it clear that he wanted to turn this article from "Platine War" to "Argentine Civil War". He insist on turning down the Brazilian participation even though that was not the view during the war and is not the view noawadays.He is simply pushing his own point of view no matter how many times I present sources and more sources that clearly reveal how lonely he is. And I warn you: do not fall in his trap. He wants us to "dicuss" and then accept his POV about Rosas. Rosas is not the focus of this article. It does not matter if he awas a dictator or a nice guy. At least not in here. Nor is the focus of this article (although it is part of and is already mentioned) the disputes between Federalists and Unitarians. --Lecen (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Platine War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I signed up to review this article previously, but before I could complete the review another editor started the review process. So I am happy to get a second chance as I enjoyed reading the article when it was a nominee before. I shall start the review shortly. Meanwhile I am doing a little copy editing which I hope you don't mind. It helps me just to fix the little stuff as I go along, rather than present you with a long list of nitpicks. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lecen. I see a few problems here; the user Belgrano is defending an unusual view that is not supported by reliable sources. Not getting into the discussion if it is right or wrong, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia therefore it should not contest or promote ideas that are not supported by well-known sources (be it primary, secondary or even tertiary). This has nothing to do with being neutral in a subject, even different points of view should be defended using reliable sources and the use of personal opinion is against the rules. In my opinion the discussion is just silly. I can see that the parties involved are passionate about the subject; nonetheless the reality is that the article has sources that are above the quality standard at Wikipedia.

Xtzou if you need help with the article or sources please let me know, I will be glad to help. Regards Paulista01 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Paulista, Historians cited by MBelgrano are absolutely representative of contemporary Argentine Historiography, José Luis Romero, Félix Luna and Tulio Halperín Donghi beign the mainstream; Pacho O'Donnell and Felipe Pigna well considered though discussed. You can find many others, but you won't find a best general representation of Argentine historiography than these. As for the views spoused by MBelgrano, there are not just one view, and they are not at all minoritary at least in Argentina. Quite the contrary. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

'Comments 'I am beginning my review. In general, this is an excellent article and very well written. However, I do have come concerns.

Lead

• The lead is very clear and concise, However, per WP:LEAD, it does not adequately summarize the article. There should be summary statements for each major section.
• I tentatively added a couple of links, as (ashamed to say this) but I only have a very rough idea where countries are in South American and need all the help I can get to orient myself geographically. For example, I was reminded by info in a link that Uruguay is a landlocked country, something that becomes especially important when states are feuding.

Background section

• This is a very intense section for someone like me, and rather hard to follow. It is quite long and involved with many names, etc. I wonder it it could be summarized more. Perhaps info can be spun out into daughter articles. (This is just a suggestion.) It would be helpful to focus on the parts that are important, clear cut factors in the actual war.

The war begins

I had much less trouble following the remaining sections.

• However, I wonder about the TOC. Both The war beings and Allied invasion of Uruguay each have one immediate subsection. It would be better, in my eyes, if there were an overall heading, that encompassed the subsections (and sub subsections) for a clearer TOC, as the layout of the TOC determines importance. The outline should be clear. (I hope I am explaining myself here.) What is the point of a heading, if it is immediately followed by a subheading?
• A minor issue: in some places it says "seven ships", and in others it says "7 ships". I see why this is done (to maintain one kind of consistency), but I am pretty sure that the other kind of consistency is what is wanted.

Xtzou (Talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC) (I may add more later.)

Thank you for taking on the review and for your constructive comments. I have rearranged the headings so that there is now no heading with only a single subsection. I've also changed the 2 lists to display numerals the same. I intend to look at the lead and to further summarizing the Background section tonight. There are other articles into which some of the material in this section might be offloaded, but the bulk of the information may need to remain until those are in better shape. Still, some simplification can likely be done. • Astynax ^talk 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I make Astynax's words my own: thank you for making this review. You have mistaked Uruguay for Paraguay. The latter is a landlocked country while the former (as you can see on the maps at "allied invasion of Uruguay" is not. Nonetheless, I agree with you in every point that you've raised. I will make the background sections more simple and direct. I will also change the map that despicts the viceroyalty to one that show all the countries involved. Aside from that, there is anything left? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC

• Sorry for mixing up the countries. (I told you my lack of knowledge regarding South America was appalling!) I have one more suggestion:
• I wonder if you would consider putting a more informative picture/map in the infobox. The reason I ask is that when I hover over a wikilink I get an informative "snapshot" of the article. For example, when I hover over a country, I frequently can see a map or other informative picture without even having to click on the article. I think many use this method, as sometimes to click on an article means a long wait for the page to load. All the pictures in the infobox, while dramatic, are too small to see without clicking on them.

Xtzou (Talk) 19:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But all articles about wars have that kind of image on the infobox, that is, a grouping of several images. You believe we should change for another one? About the map, don't worry, I will add it to the article! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. If all articles about wars have that kind of image in the infobox, then certainly you should retain it. Xtzou (Talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I have rewritten the lead. There is material drawn from each major section of the article, and it is now presented in the order in which the info appears in the body of the article. Hopefully it is now a bit more clear. • Astynax ^talk 09:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Other changes

I added another map that explains the border of the former viceroyalty as weel as the countries that were part of it and also presents Brazil. I also made changes to the text of La Guerra Grande and The Empire of Brazil reacts sections, by removing several not so important historical figures (at least to the background of the war), and making the text more direct and simple to follow. --Lecen (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the changes. The article is much clearer to me now, though it still encompasses a great deal of information, none of which I knew before. Xtzou (Talk) 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clear and concise writing

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Broad in scope

   B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I appreciate your comment IANVS. Here is my understanding of this matter:

- Most of the defense of Rosas is based on Peron and Menem, nationalist politicians. Don’t get me wrong, Brazilian history is also full of historians that are, let’s say ‘compromised’ by ideology and political parties. Unfortunately it seems to be common in Latin America. The best we can do here is also use the sources provided by English-speaking historians, and they do confirm the history written by Uruguayans, Brazilians and non-Rosista Argentineans. Let’s take a look at what the historian and professor Jeffrey M. Shumway said about the subject, note that this is a recent book published in 2004 and edited by Lyman L. Johnson:

“Revisionist historians did not hesitate to challenge and expand the national historical consciousness with heavy doses of pro-Rosas interpretation of the ceremonies and past history. Surely the Rosistas saw it as an act of balancing the historical record that had been so long titled against them.”

My notes: According to Shumway one of the first historians responsible for the revisionism of Rosas was Fermin Chavez, note that Chavez based his revision not on primary sources (correct method for a historian). He based his revision on what the Argentinean supporters of Rosas thought of him. The process used by Chavez is very unusual if we use the modern methods of historical research used in the English speaking world.

Shumway continues:

“Other commentators stood on more moderate ground. As noted historian Felix Luna pointed out, debates over Rosas will always exist because those who value the ideal of liberty above all else will never accept Rosas, the absolutist dictator. By contrast, those who place national sovereignty above all will praise the “Restorer” for protecting the national territory and standing up to aggression…. People no longer referred to Rosas “simply as ‘the tyrant,’ just as no one attempts to hold him up as an ideal model.”

My note: The issue really is about how Argentina is approaching its past and not how history happened. Argentina is taking a neutral approach to avoid internal conflict, but in the real history only one version can be correct.

If you are interested in the book, check it out here, it may be useful for other articles related to Argentina: "Félix+Luna"+Rosas&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false Google Books

Anyway, this could be added to his biographical article, but to add it in this article is just not correct.

Paulista, besides not sharing your concept that just one acount of History should be valid, being History a highly controversial subject (i.e., English-speaking traditional view on Rosas relied primarily on anti-rosista works), I do agree with you in considering the long and ongoing debate about Rosas and the nature of its government a truly important issue for Argentines. This debate should obviously be considered at lenght in Juan Manuel de Rosas and Argentine Civil War articles.

In the present article, however, we are not discussing about Rosas goverment's merits and demerits but about the general representation and explanation of the War. The main issue is not if Rosas should be considered a dictator or not, but about how we conceptualize and represent major aspects of the War: Does the War explains itself because of the expansionist ambitions of a South American leader, or does it derive from complex causes involving diverse interests and the way those interests inter-related in a complex History?, Does the Brazilian campaign account for the global scope of the War itself, or does it only represent a part of a broader conflict?, Does the casus belli rely on the Brazilian need to overthrow a potential menace in the Rosas Regime or does it include other relevant causes (i.e., Argentine Constitutional organization; Uruguayan civil war, control of the Paraná-Paraguay waterway)?, Do we have to consider Argentina as a single State or should we take into account the Confederational nature of its organization?, etc.

All of this problems are reflected in the differing historiographical views about the subject. So the need to globalize the approach underlying this article. It is not about how do we value Rosas' regime. It is about how we conceptualize the conflict. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 03:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

IANVS, I never said that just one acount (Sic) of History should be valid. What I said is that only one explanation can be a fact. If different explanations exist, one or both are certainly incorrect. We will never capture the full picture of history, not even if we were living at the historical period in question. If we choose to go down this road of argument we may deconstruct everything, and even this encyclopedia and all historical books are invalid or useless. Since Wikipedia has rules and we live in a society that accepts basic principles of historiography, we have to follow it.

Here are the rules regarding foreign sources and neutrality of sources WP:NONENG, in it you will notice that English-language sources should be used in preference to non-english ones:

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

Reliable sources and neutrality

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation.

I went to the library today (I am from Canada, so it was easy to get a lot of English-language books) and none in the library defended the points of view defended by Belgrano. I will add extra sources to the article. In my region we have a huge library with a lot of Spanish books regarding Argentina and written by Argentineans, I will try to check it next week. If I find any Argentinean sources confirming Belgrano’s view I will add it here, if I find it I will support the extra paragraph proposed by Belgrano.

My regards to everyone, Paulista01 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulista01 (talk • contribs)

Civil war?

The other argument put forward by Belgrano that this was a simple civil war is despicable. Different countries declared war on Rosas and vice-versa, how can this be civil war? I think the argument is not even logical.

I also have my personal opinions about certain historical figures; however I try not to let it influence the way I analyze or write a historical text, in the end all should be based on sources and facts.

Best regards, Paulista01 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Paulista, thank you for being a part of this discussion. However, do not fall in the same mistake commited by Belgrano: this is not the place to discuss Rosas. Let it go. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I answered to this topic as well in the precedeng response to Paulista at Sources. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

There's a way to solve the conflict in here for everyone's satisfaction. We may add a "historiography" section, detailing the different approaches made by historians about this war (causes, motivations, protagonists, etc.), and controversies among them. It would be more clear, and it wouldn't "interfere" with the sections about the chain of events themselves.

I remind the other editors that the controversies about this war itself, and about Rosas's government, are 2 related but different controversies, and that the one about this war involves the whole of Argentine historiography, not just the revisionist venue. MBelgrano (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have fun doing that on Argentine Civil War. That's the place to discuss how Argentine historians perceive this period of their history. Or else, we can bring the historic view that Brazilians, Paraguayans, Uruguayans and others have of it, too. If you want to show Rosas as a hero, do it on Juan Manuel de Rosas. --Lecen (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

An example: The article states, and surely brazilian books tell it that way, that Brazil was seeking support and find it with Urquiza. Argentine authors usually tell it the other way around: that it was Urquiza who was searching support against Rosas, and that for this he involved Brazil into the conflict (as it can be seen, a topic specific to this war).

And yes, uruguayan bibliography would also be welcomed, as it was also a country involved. MBelgrano (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Urquiza example is one fine example of what you should be writing in Argentine Civil War to explain how it evolved into the Platine War. P.S.: So, in the World War II article we should use books from at least 70 different countries to be considered a "worldwide" view of the subject? --Lecen (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been following Lecen's work for months now and I can say that I am really grateful of his work. Over the past months he has managed to shine a light on the much neglected history of the Brazilian Imperial period by producing articles of immense quality and fully verifiable.

His series of articles detailing the life of Pedro II is astounding.

With that said it is with great worry that I realize that he has had to spend time arguing about an article that if it weren't for him simply wouldn't exist, he had had to do this instead of continuing on with his work. I really hope that all this bickering and arguing don't sap his enthusiasm of writing articles.

So I urge you (@MBelgrano) to consider the fact he is bringing the history of Brazil to Wikipedia and stop this discussion because something 90% or 95% correct is way better than nothing. King <Ref> (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, MBelgrano has been doing an extraordinary job on multiple Argentine History articles, creating most of the from the bottom up. Aricles of great quality and thorough investigation as the May Revolution series. So, given that the topic of this particular article involves both Brazilian History and Argentine History, I'm sure the diverse historiographic views regarding the subject are worth discussing and elaborated. And please, let's try to avoid talking about users themselves from now on. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the problem is worse, 4 months have passed and we still have two highly productive editors stuck here for no reason, this article is done and time is being wasted on minor details.

There is no other editor on Wikipedia producing such high quality articles about Brazilian History, not a single one.

For example, the articles on Pedro I, Maria Leopoldina, Isabella the Redeemer, José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva and Duque de Caxias are crap compared with anything he has written. The list is endless.

Because of that reason I really would like to see Lecen moving on to write or improve other articles. But no, he is still here. King <Ref> (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the idea of this proposal is precisely to solve this dispute and end it. Instead of trying to write an article coherent with the perspectives of all historians that have dealt with this topic, we would largely keep it as it is and describe instead how do historians disagree, as a subtopic of its own. I'm not surprised with Lecen's resistance, he has rejected all and each one of the things I have said so far (even that minor and inconsequential correction that Rosas was not "allied" with the Federalists but a Federalist himself, which is still kept in the article). However, as there are more users involved now, I thought that the others may agree to consider it a feasible solution. MBelgrano (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no article about this conflict, now that there is, it is being cherry-picked for controversies. Instead of us being glad that it has been created and instead of using this article as motivation to improve and finish other articles such as Argentine Civil War, Justo José de Urquiza or Bartolomé Mitre we chose instead to bicker for 4 months.

For some reason, now that Lecen has taken the time to research, compile and write an article that didn't exist in the first place, suddenly there is interest on the Platine War.

Look, Lecen has completely rewritten the Empire of Brazil article and created 4 sub-articles related to it. I mean, he completely rewrote 67 years of Brazilian History. If he had faced such long disputes there, he wouldn't have had the time to write this article. I am glad he faced no disputes.

Why can't we drop this and come back in a few months? Why does it have to be now? I really want to see Lecen improving articles again. King <Ref> (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No one is stoping Lecen to work in every article he wants to. Moreover, this dispute is not about User:Lecen or User:MBelgrano. Lastly, the timing of this debate only depends on WP practices. Nothing more, nothing less. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

King Ref, I am very grateful for your kind words. However, I can only take half the credit, the other part must go to Astynax, who has done an outstanding work with me.

I never said that Rosas was not a Federalist. I've just made it more clear in the article.

I am not against changes into the article. However, for the last couple of months I had to deal with Belgrano, who actions were deplorable (to say the least) since the start, and IANVS, who threatened me several times saying that he would report me, clearly trying to intimidate me to yield over Belgrano's claims. And now, and only now, both are surprisingly cooperative and nice. Don't be surprised if I am all suspicious and resisting to give away.

Belgrano does not want to work on historiograph only. He wants to re-write history. That's what he has been doing since the beginning. The moment he made that absurd review of his (by the way, look at Xtzou's review to learn what a true one is) which was nothing else then a measure to prevent his adorable dictator from being presented as he was, I undertood his goals. He has made it clear that he wants to turn this article into a simply "Argentine civil war" and wants to portray Rosas in a positive light. I saw what he did on Rosas's article (which is an awful article, by the way) and I know what he wants to in here. Anyone is free to take a look at Juan Manuel de Rosas#Criticism and historical perspective to know what I mean. When I read that "After the defeat of Rosas in Caseros and the return of his political adversaries, it was decided to portrait him under a negative light" followed by a huge quotation that says that "No sir, we can not leave the trial of Rosas to history, because if we do not say from now he was a traitor, and taught in school to hate him, Rosas will not be considered by history as a tyrant, perhaps he would as the greatest and most glorious of Argentines", I got a chill on my spine.

When Belgrano tried to insert that only 80 were murdered by Rosas, a red light instantly appeared at my head. I've seen that type of revisionism before and I know where it leads. I will not, unless if other editors want to, yield.

This is the Wikipedia in English. Do not forget that. As I revealed in here, sources written in English (both in U.S. and Great Britain) all says the same, in the past (from people who witnessed the war) to historians of present time. Not only that, but Brazilians and even Argentine historians (as I also brought in here) has the same view. If Belgrano is so eager to say that "sum of all power" is somekind of democratic constitutional prerogative, or that "only" 80 people were murdered by Rosas, or that Brazilian participation was insignificant, or that this was not an international war but nothing more then a Argentine Civil war (which it was, until it evolved into an international war), he can do that at Juan Manuel de Rosas and Argentine Civil War. --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You may discuss that in the article if you want, but as it is noted and referenced, that long speech was made at a legislature. Yes, extraordinary claims (like that there was a conspiracy to harm Rosas image) require extraordinary sources, and which can be more extraordinary than the transcription of the speech of an anti-rosist legislator calling precisely to create such conspiracy, and whose proposal was approved? But in any case, that belongs in that article. You don't want Rosas to be mixed here? Then stop bringing it into the discussion at every oportunity. I have already proposed to skip him and go on with the war rather than Rosas.

Second, that this is Wikipedia in English does not mean that English sources take priority over non-english ones. If any X topic has been much more discussed and investigated at a non-english speaking country than english ones (such as the history of such countries), then non-english sources are welcomed. This has been discussed many times, by many users at very public places (the village pump, policies talk pages, etc.), and such discussions always end this way.

Finally, to compare Rosas with Hitler is highly provocative, and there is no relation nor comparison between holocaust denial and the Argentine revisionism. It is even misleading for foreign users who have no idea about who were Rosas or Pedro II. I may mention 2 simple examples. Rosas is currently included in the Argentine currency, at the $20 banknotes. Revisionist author José María Rosa requested the battle of Vuelta de Obligado to be celebrated as the "Sovereignty day", the 20 of november, which is aproved by law Nº 20.770. Can we expect Hitler to be included in German currency any time soon? Can we expect proposals by holocaust deniers to homage Hitler to be honoured by national legislatures any time soon? MBelgrano (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry I didn't mention Astynax, he has done a good job as well. So we have the team Lecen/Astynax and MBelgrano stuck here and arguing for the past 4 months. This is not good, I believe it is time to move on, at least for a while.

The most important article that there will ever be about Rosas will be Juan Manuel de Rosas, the time spent arguing here could have been spent improving it.

All this time spent arguing here but the Argentine Civil War article is still incomplete and besides Lecen barely talk about Rosas here.

Why all this urgency with this matter? Can't we let this cool off for a period?

King <Ref> (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Let's go back to my original proposal at the top of this thread, and we're on business. MBelgrano (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Not go back but rather move on, at least for a while. The team Lecen/Astynax would like to move on to Brazilian War of Independence and Pedro I of Brazil, but first they need to be done here.

Meanwhile you rewrite the articles Argentine Confederation, Argentine Civil War and improve Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Can we do that? King <Ref> (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we go back from all this user-level discussion and Rosas, which are not part of my proposal, and move on from that point, as it provides a new direction to solve all this that hadn't been explored before. Yes, I can easily simply let it go and fill those other articles, but eventually I would have to return here and fix it as well. MBelgrano (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you have in your mind, if it is trying to turn this article into an Argentine civil war article, or to tell that there was an international conspiracy against Rosas, or that Brazil was expansionist but at the same time was an insignificant player in the drama, or whatever you want to do, be sure on one thing: I will not let you do that. --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless I am misreading the proposal, I see this as being at cross-purposes with Wiki guidelines. By "detailing the different approaches made by historians about this war (causes, motivations, protagonists, etc.), and controversies among them" the article starts to look like a term paper or a textbook chapter, rather than an encyclopedia entry, and requires too much from both readers (demanding conclusions) and editors (synthesis and WP:OR coming up with criteria as to which sources should be included/excluded in such an analysis). Anything of the length involved in the proposal also would take away from the focus of the article. If varying historiographical positions need to be explained, then a separate article devoted to the subject is needed, since these approaches affect more than just the Platine War entry, ranging all the way from the different explanations of the breakup of Spanish colonialism, to how they have been used in coloring current issues (e.g., social stratification; pro-British/anti-British positions, etc.).

However, if what is being suggested is, a short, referenced paragraph giving very brief summations from the perspective of each of the parties to the Platine War, there would be room for something on the order of...

From the perspective of Argentina, Urquiza's victory over Rosas represented a big step, but only one step among many, in its process towards establishment of national unity. Brazil saw the Platine War as a matter of defending against an existential threat, and its participation helped consolidate a still-fragile central government and a sense of nationhood. To Bolivia and Paraguay, the war represented a respite along their paths towards forging their national identities. For Uruguay, the war was also just another step in a longer, intra-Uruguayan struggle in which interference from outsiders continued to play a part. (just a quick example; would need citations)

There is no rush, and none of us has ownership of the article, no matter how much we have or have not contributed. People may still be tweaking the article long after we are all dead. As I look at other references, the article does seem to reflect the consensus of non-regional sources. Historians from outside the area present Brazil's involvement as decisive and as boosting the prestige of that nation. As became apparent, their modernized army and navy far outclassed anything in the region. They also do acknowledge that Rosas played an important part in holding together the confederation, though they have almost nothing else good to say of him or his methods. Some speculate that if Rosas's wider ambitions not drawn Brazil's attention, the civil conflict in Argentina would likely have continued on indecisively for much longer with the proxy conflict in Uruguay also dragging on. The Platine War itself did not solve much of anything, apart from getting rid of Rosas. But it was an important factor in moving along the process of estabishing national identities for all of the nations involved. • Astynax ^talk 22:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. For I all wrote before and also for what Astynax wrote above me. He said all: "the article does seem to reflect the consensus of non-regional sources. Historians from outside the area present Brazil's involvement as decisive and as boosting the prestige of that nation. As became apparent, their modernized army and navy far outclassed anything in the region. They also do acknowledge that Rosas played an important part in holding together the confederation, though they have almost nothing else good to say of him or his methods. Some speculate that if Rosas's wider ambitions not drawn Brazil's attention, the civil conflict in Argentina would likely have continued on indecisively for much longer with the proxy conflict in Uruguay also dragging on. The Platine War itself did not solve much of anything, apart from getting rid of Rosas. But it was an important factor in moving along the process of estabishing national identities for all of the nations involved". --Lecen (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I oppose a review of the article and the use of a different historiographical approach as originally suggested by Belgrano. Like Astynax mentioned this would be against the guidelines. The current version seems perfect for the English Wikipedia. Like I said before, I would accept some additional information, it has to be with sources, a paragraph similar to what Astynax proposed would be nice. Here is what he suggested:

From the perspective of Argentina, Urquiza's victory over Rosas represented a big step, but only one step among many, in its process towards establishment of national unity. Brazil saw the Platine War as a matter of defending against an existential threat, and its participation helped consolidate a still-fragile central government and a sense of nationhood. To Bolivia and Paraguay, the war represented a respite along their paths towards forging their national identities. For Uruguay, the war was also just another step in a longer, intra-Uruguayan struggle in which interference from outsiders continued to play a part. (just a quick example; would need citations)

Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Partially oppose. I would be supportive of a short, sourced historiography section at the end of the article, in a similar fashion to the English Civil War example, with a context paragraph similar to Paulista01/Astynax's proposal near to the beginning. The English Civil War historiography section is justified by the existence of widespread secondary literature on the historiography of the war itself; a similar argument might be made in this case. Placing it lower down in the article, however, still makes the article work for a non-specialist audience.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lecen has shown sufficient impartiality, using mixed references to write down what we may consider a "consensus". A paragraph, like the ones Astynax or Paulista proposed, may be enough to point some relevant difference from a specific mount of sources. Of course, we may find a enormous variety of sources raging from opposite opinions; what we must avoid here are revisionisms, new researches and POV, like the phrase "No sir, we can not leave the trial of Rosas to history,because if we do not say from now he was a traitor, and taught in school to hate him, Rosas will not be considered by history as a tyrant, perhaps he would as the greatest and most glorious of Argentines". It is really terrible and suggests that a revision on some articles about Argentinian history may be needed… Still, if this controversy continues, distinct articles with different points of view may be created, as Astynax indicated. --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

the numbers in the Infobox differ from those in the article. it says 20.000 brazilians, and the article says, 37.500. also, in the invasion to argentina,the forces of Urquiza consisted in 19.000 argentines,3.500 brazilian regulars and 1.500 uruguayans,and the infobox says 15000 argentines and uruguayans. and the cassualties of the allies where definitely more than 600 dead and wounded,there were 600 dead and wounded only in Caseros. i think the article needs a revision —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroTaber (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing is the Brazilian Army, which numbered around 37,000, another is the mobilized army to que war, that numbered 20,000. On Argentine and Uruguayan troops, the number in the box is when the war began, that is, before Oribe's surrender. After that, his troops were added to the Argentine rebels and Uruguayan forces. Oribe's forces are counted on the box together with Rosas' forces. It is obvious that more than 600 men died, but there are no numbers available. That is why it is written "600+" and not "600". It means that more than 600 men died. --Lecen (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it should clarify that is "at the beginning of the war" so one distracted person like me can't get confused,saludos —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroTaber (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

¿Platine war?

which other country besides Brazil calls it like that. Brasil calls it "guerra do prata",Argentina "alliance against rosas",Uruguay "second brazilian invasion",and the rest of the world sees it as part of the "Guerra Grande". so,¿why is called the article "platine war"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.129.42 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In English "Guerra do Uruguai" (literally "War of Uruguay") is translated as "Uruguayan War" ("Guerra Uruguaia"), "Guerra do Paraguai" is called "Paraguayan War" ("Guerra paraguaia"), etc... So "Guerra do Prata" is not "War of Plata" but "Platine War" ("Guerra Platina"). As far as I know Argentine historiography does not have a particular name to it (that is why in the infobox this international war is considered part of the Argentine Civil War). --Lecen (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

i understand that,why i can't understand is ¿why name it Platine war and not Second brazilian invasion? why not call it with a neutral name,like "Brazilian intervention on the Guerra Grande" or coalition against rosas or something like that.the article has only the brazilian point of view,I think you were criticized for that before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.129.42 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Because I can not create a name out of nowhere. I can't call World War II "The Ultimate Bad Ass War". Wikipedia has rules and one of them is to follow the sources. And the name "Second Brazilian invasion" would certainly be wrong. Since it was Argentina that began the war why would Brazil be considered an invader? --Lecen (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

the name "second brazilian invasion",i don't know if it is right or wrong,i known that the uruguayans call it like that.

I'm in agreement with Lecen - the most common English label that I'm aware of for this particular conflict is the Platine War. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

i never heard the name "platine war" in other sources besides brazilians sources,all right leave the name but is not neutral at all,only brazilians name the war like that.

"Platine War" is neutral, and describes the location of the war in non-accusatory language. Terms such as "Second Brazilian invasion" or "Brazilian intervention" are not neutral. Among other uses of "Platine War" see:

• Morgan, Iwan. "Orleanist Diplomacy and the French Colony in Uruguay" in The International History Review, Volume 2, May 1983. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University Dept. of History (Taylor & Francis), pp. 201–214. ISSN 0707-5332
• Bauss, Rudolph William. 1977. Rio de Janeiro: the Rise of Late Colonial Brazil's Dominant Emporium, 1777-1808. New Orleans, Louisiana: Tulane University, pp. 7, 183.
• Jones, Rodney W.; et. al. Emerging powers: Defense and Security in the Third World. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, p. 345. ISBN 0-2759-2146-8

My only concern, and it is slight, is that there have been multiple conflicts in the Platine region, and "Platine War" has occasionally been used for each of those wars. If that is a concern to someone, then it would not be objectionalble to add the dates to the title—i.e., "Platine War (1851–1852)" • Astynax ^talk 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Argentine and Uruguayan strength in the infobox

I see that there has been some editing with conflicting figures here.

• First: the infobox is restating statements which are already in the body of the article. If there are varying statistics, they need to be placed in the body of the article—placing them only in the infobox makes the article self-contradictory.
• Second: the numbers in the article are already backed by good references. Differing statistics need to come from acceptable references, and be backed by proper citation(s) to those solid reference(s).
• Third: as there are already references cited for the existing numbers, it is bad form to simply blank or alter cited information. If there are equally good sources backing a different number, it may be added to (not substituted for) the existing statistic. The relevant passage may need to be amended to explain any discrepancy or variation between reliable sources—please explain.

If you have information which would change a referenced statement, it is always a good idea to go through WP:V and WP:RS to review Wikipedia's policy. References must be provided. • Astynax ^talk 02:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazil vs. Argentina... or vs. the Federalist Party?

After much thinking, I started wondering myself if it is correct to have in the infox Brazil vs. Argentina. Brazil was careful never to declare war on any country, but on their leaders. This happened in 1851, in 1864 and in 1865. A reader who knows too little about South American history will believe that Argentina "lost" to Brazil. The same will happen with Uruguayan War: anyone who read it will believe that Brazil defeated Uruguay. And that is quite misleading.

For example, in 1851, Imperial Brazil was allied to Mitre and Sarmiento, both leading the Argentine Unitarian Party, and also to the Uruguayan Colorado Party. Well, in the Uruguayan War Brazil was again allied to Mitre, leading the Argentine Unitarian Party, and to the Uruguayan Colorado Party. The same in the War of the Triple Alliance.

In fact, in all three wars, the enemy was always the same: the Argentine Federalist Party and the Uruguayan Blanco Party. What differed one war from the other was that in 1851 Paraguay was an ally and in 1865, an enemy. It is known that Federalists and Blancos fought in the Paraguayan army.

Thus, I was wondering if we could chang the infobox and the lead text to read that the enemy was the Federalist Party (then ruling Argentina) and not Argentina. In all, the Unitarians under Mitre and Sarmiento would hardly consider that Argentina was a defeated nation in 1852, since they won all three wars. So, can I make the change? --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of reading "was fought between the Argentine Confederation and an alliance consisting of the Empire of Brazil, Uruguay and the Argentine provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes." it would read "was fought between the Argentine Federalist Party (then-ruling the Argentine Confederation) and the Uruguayan Blanco Party and an alliance consisting of the Empire of Brazil, the Uruguayan Colorado Party (then-ruling Uruguay), the Argentine Unitarian Party and the Argentine provinces of Entre Ríos and Corrientes." --Lecen (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Allied forces were led in Argetina by a prominent Federal leader, Justo José de Urquiza, not by the Unitarians adscribed to the invasion. So, it was not a fight along party lines. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The article does not says that Unitarians were leading, but that Mitre and Sarmiento were leading the Unitarian force which were part of the Allied Army. Anyway, could you focus on my questions, please? --Lecen (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the immediate previous history of civil wars along party alignments across boundaries in the platine region would make anyone think that, in this case, the alignment was the same. You can count as evidence, for example, on the Unitarians exiles that were present in the army. But this case was not limited to be as one of the countless attempts on the part of the Unitarians to gain a foothold on the Argentine territory and fight the Federation. It was not the case, indeed, because of Urquiza and other Federalist forces, which not only took arms against Rosas, but in fact they were the ones who convened and commanded the whole attack on Rosas on Argentine territory (Urquiza, the same who fought in Uruguay against the Colorados on request by Rosas). Moreover, you can appreciate the relevance of the Federalist command against Rosas in that, after the defeat of Rosas at Caseros, command over Buenos Aires and the Confederation was taken by Urquiza himself, and that his political project was the 1853 Federalist constitution. On the other hand, the Mitrista political project first had to resort to the Autonomy of Buenos Aires Province, then the took over of the Confederation was only after he defeated Urquiza at Pavón... in 1861. Conclusion: In Argentina, it was not a war on the Federalist party. The war was mainly between the Confederation and two Provinces which had reclaimed full sovereignty (backed by foreign powers and political exiles), and whose project was, along the Federalist Party conception, to establish a constitutional federation in Argentina. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The war can hardly be themed a conflict between the Argentine Confederation and two rebel provinces. From the moment the Confederate government declared war on Brazil, it became an international conflict. In fact, it was an international conflict since at least 1839, when it supported with troops a civil war in Uruguay. No wonder that the allied forces were divided in two armies: one composed entirely of Brazilians under Caxias that was supposed to invade near Buenos Aires, conquer it and then march nothwest to face Rosas'army. The other army was headed by Urquiza and had Argentines, Brazilians and Uruguayans. Since I'm seeing that you are one of the advocatees of the idea that this was nothing more than a war between Argentines and the other countries involved were at best, supporters, I won't argue anymore. Thank you for your reply. --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: Urquiza's forces and the Uruguayans numbered 15,000 men, while the Brazilian Army under Caxias numbered 16,200. Urquiza as the commander-in-chief of one allied army (in fact, merely symbolic) was no more than a gentle diplomatic action from the Brazilian government. The same happened in the War of the Triple Alliance, when despite the Argentine forces numbering only 4,000 men and Brazilians 50,000, the command-in-chied was headed by Mitre, and not a Brazilian. It amazes me how some Argentine editors in Wikipedia try at all cost to change history. Even the mention of the Platine War was completely erased by MBelgrano in Argentina article. No wonder that the Argentina Wikiproject is uncapable of nominating, and even less passing, an article to Featured status. --Lecen (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm providing the Argentine POV, needed to balance the Brazilian one. In Argentine literature, the Platine War does not exist as such, it is a foreign concept. So, yes, in Argentina this conflict is understood as part of the Civil War. I'm sure you can benefit from taking into account other relevant views to this subject.

I'm commenting on this article, nonetheless, because I recognize the importance of globalizing the article (i.e., to consider other approaches to the subject, as the one you propose). So, even from what you've just written, and from your conception of the conflict, your original question is already answered: since the Argentine Confederation declared war on the Empire of Brazil, it was a Brazil-Argentina war. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you know that your recent edits are making the article more difficult to follow? Notice that the other sections, devoted to the other nations which were part of the war, do not mention internal politics, but it does give only a general view of the post war situation. You are now adding information about Argentine politics that are quite hard to a casual reader to follow, even more because you are mentioning people and facts who did not appear anywhere earlier in the text. I removed all the complicated information regarding Rosas for that same reason. --Lecen (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of valid refferences

I re-added some removed refferences, that were apparently removed to endorse a POV. Lyra reference clearly backs the article (and was ignored by the last user). Also, although Golin is not available on the internet, it is still a well known work about the subject and a valid refference with a valid ISBN. -187.38.116.145 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Platine War be merged into Battle of Caseros, as the bibliography in English mentions only the battle, and not a stand-alone and self-contained "war" as this article tries to describe. Google books gives just 50 results for "Platine War", and only 2 results for "War against Oribe and Rosas" (1 of them a wikipedia mirror). But that few results do not mean it's an obscure topic: there are 10.800 results for "battle of Caseros". It is self-evident that this "war" only exists in Brazilian historiography. How else can it be that a "war" fought by Argentina does not even have a local name? For all bibliography outside Brazil, it's Caseros, a battle with causes, preparations and consequences, but just that, a battle. Cambalachero (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I once made a review of this article with the username "MBelgrano", my account has been renamed since then, as pointed at my user page Cambalachero (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: an entire war can not be resumed by a battle. In fact, it was not composed of a single battle, there were others, such as the Passage of the Tonelero, the Battle of Alvarez Field, the Battle of Marques Bridge, etc... And from the moment the Argentine Confederation declared war on the Empire of Brazil on 18 August 1851... well... it became an international war. It would make no sense to remove this article, which, by the way, it's a Good one (the French version also is a Good Article). --Lecen (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All that ammounts to original research. Rather than discussing the reasons themselves, discuss bibliography. Yes, Caseros did not took place in thin air, it was part of a bigger conflict, but not this conflict, not according to bibliography in English. That's why 10.800 books talk about Caseros without making mention of the "platine war", and even less the alternative name. Even more: 10.800 mention the battle of Caseros without a single mention of the Duke of Caxias, the Brazilian general. 9.810 mention Caseros without mentioning the Brazilian king Pedro II. 7.520 mention Caseros and not Brazil. All contrasting with the basic 50 results for "Platine war". Which all means that, regardless of historical details, the Argentine perspective (that Caseros was a conflict between Rosas and Urquiza, and not between Argentina and Brazil) is the global perspective as well.

By the way, this is not a deletion request, but a merging request. The contents of this article would not be lost, they would be moved to battle of Caseros. Of course that it would make no sense to "remove" (meaning, delete) this article, but that is not the request. Cambalachero (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Lecen. Whether the article is correctly titled may be a matter for discussion, but it seems quite wrong to subsume a protracted conflict under a single battle. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Lecen. Since the Argentine Confederation declared war on the Empire of Brazil, it became, indeed, an international war involving more than one battle. These are facts, and can not be considered original research. Felipe Menegaz 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly the definition of original research: original interpretation of given facts, not backed up by sources, or only by a small minority. Thousands of books talk about the battle of caseros without considering the duke of caxias, pedro II or even Brazil worth a footnote. This is not the first nor the last case of a country aiding a faction of another in a civil war, it may be for the small Brazilian military history, but not from a worldwide perspective. See for instance the Spanish Civil War, with both sides filles of foreign help. Would you say it was not a civil war, or that there was a civil war contemporary to an international war between Spain and Nazi Germany? Cambalachero (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish Civil War was a proxy war between Nazi German and the Soviet Union. The Platine War was a declared war between the Argentine Confederation and the Empire of Brazil. Brazil paid and supplied Urquiza's troops since it saw much better leaving Argentines killing Argentines than waisting time sending more Brazilians. And "small Brazilian military history"? Because there are people who are far more proud of their military history that comprised solely of killing themselves for decades, of having stood neutral at World War II while supporting Nazi German and of having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it. So much to be proud of. --Lecen (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was misunderstood. When I mentioned the small Brazilian military history, I did not say it's small in comparison with Argentina, but small in a worldwide scale. And yes, the Argentine military history is small too; I'm well aware of that. The point was that using a global perspective is better than magnify things from the local one. In any case, let's stay on topic. Cambalachero (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though I agree that the proposed merger is not the best solution, there is a problem with the current title: namely, that it almost never (never that I can find, anyway) is used this way in English historiography. References to the "Platine War" are frequently to other wars in the same vicinity, such as the Cisplatine War. I can find one reference to the "war of the River Plate" in 1852, but one references does not a term of art make. Maybe this war (or subset of a larger war) does not have a name, in which case we must refrain from naming it (or perhaps from having a separate article on it, although that does not seem necessary yet). Srnec (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on Google Books results, I believe that this article should be renamed to "Guerra Grande", and be somehow merged with the Uruguayan Civil War article. English historiography (as far as the GB results show) favor the Spanish version of events and not the Brazilian POV of the situation.

The following results control for English language-only results...

• Results for "Guerra Grande" and "Brazil": 1720 results.
• Results for "Guerra Grande" and "Uruguay": 3,100 results.
• Results for "Guerra Grande" and "Argentina": 1690 resuls.
• Results for "Platine War": 50 results.

Based on this search, this article really needs to be renamed and fixed to follow English historiography. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I see renaming the war after a single battle to be intrinsicly PoV; a denial that the conflict was anything beyond a civil uprising. The problem is not with "Platine War", which has as solid support in English academic references as any other designation (including in contemporary English-language accounts), but that it is imprecise. I would support a move to "Platine War (1851–1852)", as there are 3 conflicts that are encountered with the "Platine War" designation in scholarship (the others being 1763–1777 and 1865–1870). The suggestion that the article be renamed Guerra Grande is also intrinsically PoV. Which war is labeled a Great War depends entirely upon which nation's or generation's PoV is adopted, and/or which nation is the focus of the work. That is one reason why World War I is used in both scholarship and on Wikipedia, rather than Great War. • Astynax ^talk 16:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources I have presented demonstrate that the term "Guerra Grande" is preferred by English historiography over the largely unknown term "Platine War" (50 results in Google Books really says a lot about its insignificance). It is not POV, given that the name is a Spanish name turned into a common English phrase. A similar thing happens with the Rio Grande article; plenty of "Big Rivers" exist throughout the world (See: Rio Grande (disambiguation) and Big River), but preference is given to the English WP:COMMONNAME.

The "Guerra Grande" in this case encompasses both the "Uruguayan Civil War" and the "Platine War" articles. Mixing both articles into the "Guerra Grande" article is the best option given (1) Preference of the term in English historiography and (2) WP:COMMONNAME. Unless you can provide sources to demonstrate my evidence as erroneous, your argument is nothing more than an opinion without foundation. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the existence of separate articles for "Rio Grande" and "Big River" demonstrate that, when they are Spanish phrases-turned-English, no contradiction exists. Therefore, a "Guerra Grande" article would not have a problem with the Great War article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Guerra Grande is the name of the Uruguayan Civil War that began roughly in 1832 and ended on 19 October 1851 when Oribe surrended. The Platine War, on the other hand, is the name of the international war between the Argentine Confederation and the Empire of Brazil. It began on 18 August 1851 when the Argentine government declared war on Brazil and ended on 20 February 1852, when Brazilian troops entered Buenos Aires, the Argentine capital. According to your view, then, we should merge World War II with Second Sino-Japanese War and with Chinese Civil War. Pure nonsense. Your role, as well as of your Argentine friend, is no more than to downplay Brazilian role to the point of insignificance, and treat an international conflict as a mere local civil war. "Thousands of books talk about the battle of caseros without considering the duke of caxias, pedro II or even Brazil worth a footnote", these were MBelgrano (Cambalachero)'s words. Thousand books? Hah! --Lecen (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the merge tag as there quite clearly is not and will not be any consensus to do this. Changing the title of the article is a separate issue from merging that can be discussed in another thread. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)