Talk:Platine War/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MBelgrano (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed in previous threads, this article is based on a translation of a portuguese one, but this brings a problem: it "imports" the local view on the matter, and fails to represent a global view on the subject. In particular, being a war between Brazil and Argentina, both Brazilian and Argentine books must be checked. There's a huge number of Brazilian books referenced, but not a single Argentine one. I will point some of the problems.

First of all, as I have pointed in the respective article, the view of Rosas as a dictator is hardly an hegemonic one as it would be needed to label him as such as a matter of fact. According to the book "Historia de la Historiografía Argentina" (in Spanish, "History of the Argentine Historiography"), a book that makes an overview on Argentine historians from 1850 to the present day, the early portrayals of Rosas as such were not the result of an academic consensus but a state-imposed view on the topic, arranged by contemporary people right after Rosas defeat (and the quote I have provided speaks for itself). Decades later, when such imposing faded as well as the anti-rosist fury, many authors would view him under wholly different angles, even highly positive ones. And this was by 1930, there was still 70 more years of developing until modern day.
I am aware of Rosas's desire to reunite once more the old viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. However, the concept of it being a shared goal by Argentines is a surprise. I have never read about that; on the contrary, what I have read is that most people of that time cared only for their local areas of influence. According to Félix Luna, the brief life of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata did not allow for a patriot feeling to grow and link those cities toguether: he viceroyalty was united for the mutual loyalty to the Spanish kingdom, with it lost, nobody in Buenos Aires cared too much about what happens with Uruguay or the Upper Peru. After all, San Martín marched to free Lima without the support of Buenos Aires, and even against the orders to come back with his army and join the civil war. So, I find it hard to accep vague quotes like "an old Argentine dream", "Like many other Argentines" or "a goal cherished by many in Argentina since independence.", and a vague generalization in a foreign book seems a weak reference. I ask a better question: if there were "many" Argentines, besides Rosas, that wanted to do this, it shouldn't be so difficult to name a few contemporary of him that supported this project.
"In theory, Rosas only held as much power as governors of the other Argentine provinces. But in reality, he ruled over the entire Argentine Confederation, as the country was then known." is an inaccurate description of Rosas. It fails to mention that it was the legislature that invested him with absolute powers, and his appointment to manage the international relations of the Confederation, in the lack of a formal head of state. A deeper description of the nature of his ruling should be more appropiate.
That Rosas was "corrupt" is merely a diatribe of his political enemies. The fact is that there isn't any charges of embezzlement against him, and that he left power more poor than when he took it. Choose another adjetive or topic.
"allied with the Federalists"? Rosas was federalist! in fact the head of the federalist party. Would you say that Obama is "allied with the Democrats"?
There's no mention at all to the history of attemps to create a national Constitution, which is the main reason of the divergences between Rosas and Urquiza. Neither is there about the situation of Entre Rios during the government of Rosas, or the mailings of Echeverría and Sarmiento urging Urquiza to riot against Rosas and be seen by the world as a liberator.
The "The Empire of Brazil reacts" section should be moved to the background section, as it describes the background in Brazil.
That section is too favourable for Brazil. There are other perspectives. José María Rosa describes Brazil, in his book "El Pronunciamiento de Urquiza", as a country still ruled by a monarchy, with a huge level of slavery work, and ruled by an aristocratic class, whenereas Argentina was ruled by a government that supported the lower classes. Where the authors you checked talk about rebellions financed by Rosas, Rosa talks about people with abolicionist aims that saw Rosas as an example of a social system not run by the aristocracy feasible.
There is no mention on the dispute for the Misiones Orientales, that Argentina considered illegally taken by Brazil in 1801.
Urquiza did not reassumed the sovereignity of Entre rios out of the blue. Rosas resigned such powers periodically, but in the knowledge that his satellite governors would reject it and everything would remain the same. What Urquizas did was to actually accept Rosas resignation. Of course, being a "false" resignation Rosas would not honour it (nor Urquiza really expected him to), but this context should be described nevertheless. And even if it may seem obvious, it must be noted that, except Entre Ríos and Corrientes, all the other provinces of the Confederation supported Rosas against Urquiza.
There's a detail missing in the agreement between Entre Rios, Corrientes, Uruguay and Brazil. They did not declare war against Rosas, but agreed to do so if Rosas declared war on any of them. When he did, declaring war against Brazil, this clause tur the others into war as well.
It's a little unclear in the text that it was Urquiza, not the Brazilian armies, who dominated Uruguay. The Brazilians were marching slowly and arrived to the zone a week later. Even more, such delay risked the alliance with breaking, as by the time Caxias arrived to Montevideo Urquiza and Oribe had already ended negociating.
"See also" sections must not include red links. If a related topic does not have an article, write it first and then link it here.
In a general overview, the article talks about Brazil as if it was the protagonist of the war, the one who made it happen and the clear victor of it (even in the infobox). Urquiza seems as a mere pawn of Brazil, like an otherwise loyal governor turned against Rosas because of Brazilian plotting and support. But that's far from being the case. It is not me who says so, nor any of the books I have: it is the agreement itself of the allied forces. Urquiza was the leader, and Brazilian troops would be just of an auxiliary type, with the Empire of Brazil having denied any territorial claim from the victory. As already pointed at some point, there were 20.000 Argentine soldiers, against just 4.000 brazilian ones. Of course, Brazil had reasons of their own to oppose Rosas, and expected certain benefits from their aid, but it was just that. No war can end with a victory of the auxiliar troops. MBelgrano (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite suprised to learn that Wikipedia has a rule that says that to write about something you must bring sources on several different languages. So, if I, as a Brazilian, worked on the article with Brazilian books that would make the whole text useless? So, because it is a text about Argentina and is written by a Brazilian that means that is completely biased? A Japanese can not write about the Pacific campaign unlees he also use an American book?
It might not be hegemonic among ultra-nationalist Argentine historians, perhaps. But Rosas killed more than 10,000 people and other 15,000 fled the country to escape from him. You call that a democracy?
If you are surprised by that, you should read more about your country's history. Even Bartolomé Mitre's support of Flores' rebellion that led to the War of the Triple Alliance happened because he desired to reunite Uruguay and Argentina. Even Peron made talks with Nazi Germany in 1943-45 to recreate the old viceroyalty by taking territory from Brazil.
A legislature that invested him with absolute powers? Isn't that another name to... "dictatorship"? Because as far as I know, Fidel Castro and Saddan Hussein were also "elected" several times and they were nothing more than dictators.
Of course he left the country more poor. He fled to exile to escape from his enemies.
Rosas as a federalist: fine, just change the wording. No big deal.
Empire of Brazil reacts: fine.
No reason to talk about constitution on Argentina or disputes over it. This is not an article about Argentine political history or about the Argentine civil war. This is an article about a war between Brazil, Uruguay, two Argentine Provinces against the Argentine Confederation. Just that. If the political history in those countries are mentioned, even if in a short way, it is because it was needed to explain who the war begun. More than that should be seen in other more focused articles.
So what with Brazil was a monarchy? Since when a country being a monarchy is wrong? Japan, UK, Canada, Australia, Spain are still monarchies up to this day. In fact, almost all Europe was then composed of monarchies. Anyway, that's not to be discussed in this article. And so what if it had slavery? The United States was a republic and also had slaves. On what slavery in Brazil should be considered important in this article? Did slavery in Brazil had any kind of influence in the war? What you are saying does not make any sense. And I won't lose my time making any comment about your view of Rosas' goverment as democratic and "for the people". You are clearly upset with the article because it shows Rosas as nothing more as yet another dictator-caudillo in Latin America.
And why should be mentioned the dispute over the Missiones Orientales in 1801? That territory was granted by Spain to Portugal while Portugal delivered Sacramento. This is not an article about the history of Brazil-Argentina relations. Is about a war that occurred in 1851. If we would write in here every single piece of disagreement, wars, battles, claims or whatever that occurred since Brazil and Argentina were nothing more than colonies the article would be huge and it would lose its focus.
No reason to describe that Rosas had "periodically resigned" or anything similar. Again: this is an article is about the war between Brazil, Uruguay and two Argentine provinces against the Argentine Confederation. Such details should be in an article about the Argentine Civil War or on Uruquiza or Rosas' articles.
Nowhere it says that Brazil, Uruguay and Corrientes declared war on the Argentine Confederation. It says that they made an alliance and that's it. The text is clear when it says that the war begun when Rosas declared war on Brazil.
Is not clear? The text tells about the Brazilian army advance through Uruguay and then tells about Urquiza having surrounded Oribe's forces forcing him to surrender. Do you want something more clear than that?
Red links: fine.
Brazil as a supporter: That's wrong. The allied forces was divided in two armies: one composed of Brazilians, Argentines and Uruguayans. Another one composed of Brazilians only. If Rosas had won Monte Caseros or had retreated to Buenos Aires to continue the war your view that Brazil was simply a small player wouldn't make sense. If Brazil did not have the chance to engage with its own army in the war and it looked like it had send "only" 4,000 men it is unfair to blame it. Blame Rosas who surrended and left the country without a true fight. To call Brazil forces simply "auxiliar" is incorrect. Had Rosas won Caseros on kept fighiting in Buenos Aires and the 16,000 Brazilians had had the chance of fighting (as it was believed it would) you wouldn't be calling the Brazilian forces "auxiliar".

I don't know why I bothered to answer you now. You did not give any chance to make any change on the text or to discuss your comments. All you want is to downsize Brazil's participation in the war and turn it into an article about the Argentine civil war. Not only that, you clearly has something against Brazil and wants to show Rosas as a democrat who died poor and fought for the people. The article's text is biased? Your view is the one that is biased. It is not because you are an administrator that you can act like that and ignore the effort of several contributor only because of your personal opinions. You are acting according to your own personal reasons and did not give us the chance to discuss the matter. You wanted to block any chance of the article being raised to good status because it is not written in the way yoy want it? Fine. What you did was wrong and unfair. You should know that, --Lecen (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I failed the article directly because the problems with it are not something that may be fixed right away, such as copyedit problems or small details, but a failure in presenting a worldwide view on the subject that will need a big rewriting of the article. Even more, it will involve finding a whole new set of sources that have so far been overlooked, and with the added problem of being in a different languaje. Being a conflict between two countries, both countries views must be considered. Nobody said that the work done with sources from one of the sides was "useless" or that you gave prominence to the brazilian viewpoint on purpose, just that the work is still incomplete. And it must be completed, Neutral point of view is a mandatory requirement.

By the way, I did gave a chance. I requested in the article to point "who" were the "many Argentines", but you neither reference, clarify or delete it, you simply reformulated it into a weasel quote of "an old Argentine dream", with the same problem. Such lack of cooperation led me to decide to skip doing so in "phases" and provide instead a general review in a single time. But as I kept reading it, the problems and omisions I kept finding were so important that I decided that a direct fail was in order.

Another thing, we are not here to discuss Rosas ourselves. In fact, if we did I would be against him, as I personally support the idea that the National Constitution should be written decades before, but that's just my idea. Here, we must discuss what do historians think about Rosas, and reflect it. And don't be so surprised if there's greater investigation and discussion about Rosas at Argentina than at Brazil: Rosas was, after all, an Argentine politician. "You are clearly upset with the article because it shows Rosas as nothing more as yet another dictator-caudillo in Latin America." is actually disturbing: you are basically saying that you are portraiting him as such on purpose.

I may point some of the mistakes in your answers, but it doesn't seem to be justified. You don't sound as being ready to identify the problems and act upon them, but rather on a merely defensive position. One of the main ones: the Brazilian army was not an auxiliary one because I or any author says so, or because of their little participation. It is because it was arranged that way in the pact of the allies.

By the way, a side comment. I'm not an admin here, I'm an admin at Commons. But even if I was, that would not mean anything in a GA review. Only the reasons provided are important. In short, this article is not balanced between the Argentine and Brazilian viewpoints, and I have provided a good list of topics that must be adressed to fix so, but you refuse to acknowledge them. MBelgrano (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make any difference, any at all, to the article, if we put in there that Rosas was a dictator who fought for the "people" (a very catch word in Latin American politics, isn't?) who died "poor"? No, it wouldn't. What you want is simply to portrait Rosas in a positive light. The moment you said that Brazil "was a monarchy" and had slavery revealed your true position. Being a monarchy (or a republic) has never been an issue for any country (perhaps for Denmark, Norway and Japan?) or even slavey (when slavery was something considered "acceptable" until the 19th century) as I pointed out by giving U.S.A. as an example.

Brazilian viewpoint? What? The Argentine Confederation government supported rebellions in several countries with the goal of recreating the old Viceroyalty (not as a monarchy, it's obvious) and Brazil saw it as threat for its own interests and sovereignty and thus the war happened. That's it. And you consider that a "Brazilian viewpoint"? The book "Brasil e Argentina: Um ensaio de história comparada (1850-2002)" written bythe Brazilian historian Boris Fausto (for the Brazilian parts) and the Argentine Fernando J. Devoto (for the Argentine parts) also refers to Rosas as a dictatorship and the war as a conflict of interests between the two countries. What you call an "Argentine viewpoint" is nothing more than the view of ultra-nationalist Argentines towards Rosas's government and that's a minority view in Argentina.

I never said it was "on purpose". I wrote according to the sources. Was the Brazilian Getúlio Vargas a dictator with caudillo traits? Yes, he was. Was he someone who is considered by ultra-natioanlists as someone who died poor and ruled "for the people"? Yes, he is. Would that make any difference to understand Brazilian internal politicla disputes and even less foreign relations? No, it wouldn't. You want to put in there that Rosas was a patriot who fought for the people and ordered the death of 10,000 political opposiotionists for I don't know what reason? Do it, Feel free. You'll ruin the article because that is nothing more than a lie.

The Brazilian army was supposed to wait for the result of the clash betwwen the allied army and the Confederate army. If it went bad for the allies, the Brazilian army would advance towards Argentina. The fact that it did not need to do that (thank God or else the Brazilian and Argentine relations would be far worse nowadays) does not means that you can make the Brazilian participation as simply a footnote. And that's what you wanted to do.

There were no "phases". You never said "Hey guys, I'm starting to review the article so please, help me out with any doubts or comments I make, ok?". You simply changed "dictator" for "governor" and wrote "See Rosas article". Since then that's explains anything? Then you put a "who" tag and I tried to make the wording more clear. You could have asked in the talk page: "Guys, could someone give me the quotation from each source so that I could understand exactly what the authors meant when they wrote that that was an Argentine goal?". Did you do that? No. Did you warned us that you were reviewing? No. Did you asked for comments or answers? No. You simply pointed out what you call a "non-universal view" (which is not even a predominant view in Argentina itself!) and a "I don't like the way you portraited my hero so I will vote against it! Sorry!" type of review. You called my behavior a "defensive" one? No, that's from someone who thought it was an outrageous behavior from a reviewer who did not acted neutral nor tried to reason. --Lecen (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]