Talk:Cisplatine War

Opening heading

oth Brazil and Argentina and Uruguay lost, mind you. User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Confederation with Argentina

The article says "[...] and decided to join a confederation with Argentina." That isn't really precise, as the Banda Oriental -Uruguay- was already considered part of Argentina, being part of the United Provinces of the River Plate: by that time there was no notion of Uruguay as an independent country but as part of a confederation of provinces that had Argentina as an informal name, officialized when the Banda Uruguay had already been separated.

The congress that met in La Florida in 1825 only reaffirmed for legal and symbolic purposes that the Banda Oriental was part of the Provincias Unidas, but no one except Brazil would have questioned that before the war; being against Rosas wasn't a reason for not being part of the Provincias Unidas, as many provinces were governed by Unitarian caudillos opposed to him. If Uruguay is now an independent country, and with this I'm not questioning its independence, it is thanks to British commercial interests, and when Argentines say that "Uruguay es una provincia argentina" it's not -on most cases- because of some sort of nazism or expansionism, but because of recognizing in some way the Banda Oriental as one more of the provinces that, by their own will, form the Argentine Nation. --200.85.112.116 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You've already shown you know more about this than me (I mean it, not sarcastic), so why don't you integrate the above into the article? I only thought an article was needed, if only as a stub mentioning the historical setting. I basically learned about this through Pergolini's show and after writing the article for Carmen de Patagones... --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Carlos Frederico Lecor

Same as in the Portuguese language wikipedia, Carlos Frederico Lecor was missing as one of the Brazilian leaders in the conflict. He was Commander in Chief of the "Army of the South" both in the begining of the conflict (11.Mar.1826 to 26.Nov.1826) and at the end (22.Jan.1828 till after the end of the war). Despite most critics picturing him as an undecisive leader, he was in fact the commanding general and knew how to mobilize the gaúchos of Rio Grande do Sul, who were very happy with his appointment in 1828. Jorge6207 (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Argentina–Brazil War → Cisplatine War — First and most important of all, this international conflict was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". Someone created that. I repeat: this conflict was/is not called anywhere "Argentina-Brazil War". Second, there was no Argentina back then, but the United Provinces of South America. The war is called in Brazil "Guerra da Cisplatina" and in Argentina "Guerra del Brasil". I looked in Google books and found out that there is no "Brazilian War" (Guerra del Brasil in English, here: [1]) but there were plenty of results for "Cisplatine War" (See: [2]). Since this is the English-written Wikipedia, I believe the name used for the conflict should be the English-version widely used. Examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] etc, etc, etc... Regards to all, Lecen (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: When you use google (or google books) to check the usage of terms with more than one word, you must write them between apostrophes to seek the usage of both words used toguether, and not just entries where both words simply appear. "Brazilian War" goes from 551.000 (without apostrophes) to 2.370 (with apostrophes); but "Cisplatine War" falls from 4.350 to just 343. In any case, I support the current name, to avoid giving undue weight to either the Argentine or the Brazilian usage. MBelgrano (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not surprised by your vote, but we can not use a name that does not exist. Also, your links doesn't mean anything. I saw at them "Brazilian War of Independence" in "Brazilian War" results. I am talking about actual names used to describe this conflict. Cisplatine War is used in English-written books, Brazilian war isn't. That's the main point: this is the English-written Wikipedia and I'm talking about what English-written sources say. Lastly, and again, no book uses "Argentina-Brazil War". You have two options, MBelgrano: start contributing for real or stop being a nuisance. --Lecen (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, it's a wide usage that is mentioned in 343 books in English. If that proves anything, is that there isn't really a "wide usage", and those wars are an obscure topic in English literature (no big surprise). It's the Argentine, Uruguayan and Brazilian historians who have made really important studies about this war. And the policy states that English sources are preferred, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. So, let's seek (turning on results only in English): "Cisplatine War" is used 343 times as pointed, "Guerra del Brasil" 585 times and "Guerra da Cisplatina" just 201. And now that we come to it, which of both has a higher historiographical production about the war? 11.100 results for "Guerra del Brasil" in Spanish, 2.110 results for "Guerra da Cisplatina" in portuguese.

By the way, I find your comment a bit aggresive MBelgrano (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support as "Cisplatine War" seems to be "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME), and there are certainly enough such sources. Kanguole 16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment The translation of "Guerra del Brasil" as "Brazilian War", and thus the search for such term, was a translation attempted by Lecen. "War of Brazil" gives 296 results. Not much, but 343 aren't either. In any case, that confirms that it's a obscure topic in English literature, as both the Spanish and Portuguese names are reflected in translation. And, as pointed, English reliable sources do not take priority when their coverage is so weak and obscure in comparison with the local usage. Note that there are even some results for "Uruguayan War of Independence"MBelgrano (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Guerra da Criméia" is translated as "Crimean War", not "War of Crimea". The same with "Guerra da Coréia" which is written as "Korean War" (not "War of Korea"), "Guerra do Paraguai" is "Paraguayan War" (not "War of Paraguay"). Guerra do Brasil would be "Brazilian War", not "War of Brazil". And the question raised is not how many results Google can find but "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources". --Lecen (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware of it, but you are not taking into account that we are dealing with 3 languages here, not 2. "War of Brasil" is not "Guerra do Brasil" translated into "Guerra del Brasil" in Spanish and then into an English name, it's a Spanish name translated into English. Why "War of Brazil" and not "Brazilian War"? Because, in Spanish, the "Brasil" of "Guerra del Brasil" is a noun, not an adjetive. And the use of "War of (noun)" instead of (adjetive) war" is not unknown to the English language. See War of the Pacific, War of 1812, War of the First Coalition, War of the Confederation, and even the War of the Farrapos which you should know very well. MBelgrano (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The matter is not what is the correct translation. It's quite simple: this conflict is/was not called "Argentina-Brazil War". Again: this name does not exist. This a fabricated name by some Wikipedian editor. Since this name has to go, another must be placed in its place. There is no book that calls it "War of Brazil" or "Brazilian War". "Cisplatine War" is "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources", and thus, is the one that should be used from now on.

And please: stop with the google books search results. None of the books that appear ins the search results when typing "War of Brazil" has nothing to do with this war. While "Cisplatine War", that is, the name used for this conflict which occurred between 1825-28 there are countless books which use this name. Ex.: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], etc, etc, etc... --Lecen (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was you who made a proposal based in google book searches. I'm just pointing that you haven't configured your search correctly, and haven't tried all the possible angles. But if you want names of specific books, I can provide them as well. John Lynch (historian), one of the most important English-speaking historians working with 19 Century South American history, uses "War of Brazil" at Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas, and he certainly uses "Cisplatine" just to reference the short-lived brazilian province. There are further non-Cisplatine uses by other people here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. By the way, even if there are no results for "Argentina-Brazil War", there is a similar ammount to the Cisplatine ones for "Argentine-Brazilian War" (here).

In any case, this isn't about verifiability, but about neutrality. Verifiability does not defeat neutrality, if there's a naming conflict between Spanish and Portuguese sources (which got reflected into English use), then we can't say that we should use one of both merely pointing that it exists.

If the article is to be moved, I suggest doing to Argentine-Brazilian War. It is not the Argentine, Brazilian or Uruguayan main use (so we wouldn't be taking sides), and, as pointed before, there are already uses for it. It's verifiable, and it's neutral, and even moe, it won't be a great change from the current article name. Let's move to that one instead. MBelgrano (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

MBelgrano, enough is enough. The name "Cisplatine War" is being suggested because it's the name widely used by English-written books, not because I am Brazilian or something like that. I's amazing that no matter how much time passes, you simply don't learn. You're clearly desperate not to see this article be renamed to "Cisplatine War" simply because in your view, is the name used by Brazilians. What is your goal? To keep wiriting and writing so that this talk page becomes impossible to be read by anyone thus shunning away anyone who could be interested in this poll? Is that your objective? You first tried to bring Google results with link that had "War" and "Brazil" in it, even though none of them had anything to to with this conflict. Were you trying to make us all of fools? Now you bring to us other results. Let's take a look at them, shall we?

The first link is this one [51], where we can not even read the page and see if the book is talking about this 1825-28 conflict. Not only that, the words in it are "war of Brazil", in lower case, not "War of Brazil", as it would be written if that was the title of a conflict. Are you still trying to make us all of fools? Do you believe we would simply see "War" and "Brazil" spelled somewhere and take it for granted? Your behavior is certainly reproachable.

The second link you brought [52] says "Nothing very important had occurred in the war of Brazil and Buenos Aires". That's not the title of a war, but merely a sentence. It could have been written as "had occurred in the conflict between Brazil and Buenos Aires". C'mon, man. Is this a joke? Why are you doing this? You leave me nochoice but to ignore you from now on, MBelgrano. You're not worth it.

The links I gave above are from English-written books written by historians and the title they use for this war is "Cisplatine War". --Lecen (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really need to say that you have a Brazilian bias and reject to represent other points of view fairly. You proudly said that yourself. And yes, you are indeed proposing this change because it's the Brazilian usage, you said it yourself. Anyway, this isn't a poll but a discussion. I mantain my final proposal: "Argentine-Brazilian War" is used in a similar proportion than "Cisplatine War" in English books, as a given name for the war. (see here) It isn't the name used by any of the sides, it is used in books (we wouldn't be making it up), and it's the ideal name for both verifiabily and neutrality policies. MBelgrano (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Could stop acting on bad faith? Do not remove my words from its true context. Nowhere I said that I had a Brazilian bias or that I am against other legitimate points of views. In that article I said I was a staunch supporter of democracy, human rights, etc... and strongly opposed dictators. In the second link, I wrote "Changing the name of conflicts for the ones used in Brazil and in English-Written books". Since its an article about the Empire of Brazil, it does make sense. What does not, is you flawed behavior. You're a dishonest. I deplore how you behave, MBelgrano. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

An article about a Brazilian topic does not "belong" to Brazil, and certainly a war does not "belong" to only one of either sides of the conflict. And to say that one is not against "legitimate" points of view is just rethoric: to discredit other perspectives and then say that they are not legitimate and may be ignored is the same than being against them. By the way, it is you who started accusing of bad faith and conspiracies, I merely pointed your contradictions between what you say here and what you say elsewhere. But if you are willing to it, we can avoid any future personal remarks from now on.

By the way, you haven't replied yet the "Argentine-Brazilian War" proposal. MBelgrano (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how could it be possible that English-written books about Argentina such as Argentina: a primary source cultural guide [53], Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide [54], A new economic history of Argentina [55], Argentina [56] and Argentina [57] (different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name "Cisplatine War"? --Lecen (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. I'm sure we've been through this before recently. Perhaps it just feels like it. The most common English name, I continue to believe, is the Cisplatine War. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have never been through this before, this talk page has no archives. And, if there was a previous discussion about the name of this article somewhere else, I am not aware of it. By the way, this isn't a poll. I have linked that "Argentine-Brazilian War" is almost equally used than the proposed name, in English books, as a given name, and by not being a translation of the Argentine, Uruguayan or Brazilian name it's better for the neutral point of view. And this must be the third or forth time I point this, but Lecen always dodged this question so far. MBelgrano (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I was thinking of the rather similar debate about the Platine War - you're right, this is the first time this has been discussed over the Cisplatine/Argentina-Brazil War.

The reasons for my believing that the Cisplatine War is the most common English name for the conflict are that:

• A Google Book search provides 357 hits for "Cisplatine War", but only 41 for "Argentina-Brazil War".
• A Google Scholar search gives 75 and 9 respectively.
• "Argentine-Brazil War" (with an -e) isn't popular either in the literature: another 9 hits come up on Google Book, none on Scholar.
• When I worked on the later conflicts, the most common name I remember coming up in the reference works was the Cisplatine War.
• I believe that the reason for this was that when the first English histories of the conflict were written in the 1830s, the area mostly now occupied by Argentina was then referred to as the United Provinces. The English habit at the time, in any case, was to refer to the conflicts by region, thus Cisplatine. The label has stuck pretty consistently since in the English language literature.

Hchc2009 (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009, nevertheless, simply looking at the number os hits given by a search engine isn't enough. As I said before, if you write "War" and "Brazil", you'll get results which have nothing to do with the subject. What is important is: how many books actually use this or that title? And yes, they use "Cisplatine War". Leaving aside the "Brazilianphobia" that the Argentine MBelgrano has, names such as "Cisplatine War", "Platine War", "Uruguayan War" and "Paraguaiayan War" are not used because some people like Brazil more than Argentina or similar. As you said: it's the name given according to geographical location of the conflict. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree about search engines being only part of the solution in generating evidence to support a claim for a particular name. That's one of the reasons I'm keener on Google Book searches (which just searches published books) or Google Scholar (ditto for academic articles) if we're interested in finding out relevant statistics, rather than just global Google searches or similar. I agree that searching for "War" and "Brazil" will not give an accurate stat. The searches I've done are with quotation marks, thus only picking up the full phrase in each case. But in this case I think the significant majority of the evidence points the same way, in favour of using Cisplatine War here as the most appropriate English name for the conflict. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Brazilianphobia"? So much for good faith.

Hchc2009, make your search for "Argentine-Brazilian War" (using the demonym both times, your "Argentine-Brazil war" mixes a demonym and a country as noun). You will find that it gives 293 results, not very far away from the results obtained for "Cisplatine War". And yes, as a given name, and about this specific conflict. This refutes Lecen's constant statement that his proposal may be the "most common use" in English, it is not. He's insisting on that just to dodge this other result, surely because he has no answer to refute it. And if you want something more specific and scholar than google searches in huge numbers of books, so be it: I understand that John Lynch is the most recognized English-speaking historian making works related to the 19º century history of South America. A google search of his name and "Cisplatine" provides only a mention to the Cisplatine province. And I have checked directly (meaning, reading myself) his biography of José de San Martín, in the section contemporary to this war. He does not call it "Cisplatine War" anywhere, even when talking about it. MBelgrano (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Again: then, could explain to me how it is possible that English-written books about Argentina such as Argentina: a primary source cultural guide [58], Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide [59], A new economic history of Argentina [60], Argentina [61] and Argentina [62] (different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name "Cisplatine War"?

Right, have tried Argentine-Brazilian War as well. Totals so far:

• "Cisplatine War". 221 hits on Google as a whole. 357 hits on Google Books (published works). 75 hits on Google Scholar (published articles).
• "Argentine-Brazilian War". 181 hits on Google as a whole. 280 hits on Google Books (published works). 19 hits on Google Scholar (published articles).

I know John Lynch primarily for his works on the revolutionary period. I'm afraid I don't know how he refers to the 1825 war, as I can't find an on-line work that links him to either the term "Cisplatine war" or "Argentine-Brazilian war". I would be interested to know what term he prefers though. The Cambridge University texts I can find tend to go for Cisplatine.

On this basis I still hold to the view that the most common English-language term for the 1825 conflict is the Cisplatine War.Hchc2009 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your own results make it clear that either uses are used in similar ammounts. A mainstream use would be a use with at leat some hundreds of entries of distance from other uses, which is not the case here. A difference of just a few tens does not set apart a mainstream usage from an obscure one. WP:COMMONNAME tells us that, when there is no single obvious common name for the topic, we should use other criteria. As pointed before, "Argentine-Brazilian War" allows us to avoid giving preference to either the Spanish or the Portuguese name. And there's another advantage from it, among that list: Recognizability. Only Brazilians, Uruguayans and Argentines (and only those with knowledge of history) know what is "Cisplatine". This, of course, rules out the vast majority of English speakers. The meaning of "Argentine-Brazilian War", on the other hand, is much more easy to identify: it's a war between Argentina and Brazil. MBelgrano (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the use of the name "Argentina" is correct even from the perspective of that specific time period. The 1826 Constitution of Argentina references the country as the "Argentine nation". So, Argentine-Brazilian War (as a war named after the countries or territories involved) may have been used even by then MBelgrano (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Makes sense to change since the nation of Argentina didn't even exsist during this time period. Spongie555 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comment just above yours. Yes, it was the Argentine Nation who was waging the war, not a former state that would become Argentina one day. MBelgrano (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The mere denomination "Cisplatine" is Brazilian bias, no way to denny this. BTW, the Argentine Republic (named as such by the 1826 Consittution) waged the war. So yes, it was a Brazil-Argentina war. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering when MBelgrano's partner would show up. There he is. But it took longer than I expected. I don't know any of you two Argentine fellows mean by "Brazilian bias" by simply using the name that English-written historiograph prefer.

However, I still haven't forgot your wonderful (I'm being ironic) job in Platine War causing all that hysteria in a desperate attempt to show that dictator Rosas as a democratic leader. Ow, and I almost forgot, seeing everywhere a "Brazilian bias" there. Yes, Hchc2009 was right, he saw all this before.

Although my articles are always of the highest quality possible and always are elevated to Featured status, anytime I try to write a single article that somehow has Argentina involved, I have to deal with you two. Because of you two articles such as this one, Platine War, Uruguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance are the way they are now: bunch of awful articles. Why's that? Because no one can write anything there because it's certain that you two will appear and turn the miserable editor's life into a living hell. The result is that those articles are left unfinished, because none of you two do anything there too. Nor you two let anyone work on them neither you two do anything on them also.

Trust me, you're doing more harm than good in here. It's like you do this just for fun, you know? "Hey, let's mess with him and turn his life into a hell, after all, he's an evil Brazilian!" Grow up, ok? P.S.: If it's a Goddamn Brazilian bias, could any of you two explain to me how how it is possible that English-written books about Argentina such as Argentina: a primary source cultural guide [63], Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide [64], A new economic history of Argentina [65], Argentina [66] and Argentina [67] (different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name "Cisplatine War"? --Lecen (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of your lies and personal aggressions, lecen. I coped with them for a long year now, but it is over. If you are not able to limit yourself to discuss the issues at hand, I'l simply ignore you, and I ask you to ignore me as well. Let's go no with the thread. --IANVS (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop evading the matter once and for all. Placing an "oppose" vote isn't enough. If it is a Brazilian bias, why do English-written books use "Cisplatine War" and how is it possible that English-written books about Argentina such as Argentina: a primary source cultural guide [68], Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide [69], A new economic history of Argentina [70], Argentina [71] and Argentina [72] (different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name "Cisplatine War"? Just tell me! --Lecen (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So... it all comes down in that Lecen is holding a grudge about a GA nomination of almost a year ago? It's pointless trying to talk with him, then. If a simple disagreement turns his life into a hell as he says, then talking further will simply increase his aversion without helping to reach a consensus. IANVS, just ignore him, and talk with the other users around here. It's the best way to avoid this from growing into an all-out controversy instead of just a simple discussion about the name of this article. MBelgrano (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Support the move to "Cisplatine War". Three reasons: (1) The case for the use of the term "Cisplatine War" in English-language historical literature is stronger. (2) The name itself seems logical and more accurate. From what I have read, "Argentina" may or may not have have been an organized state before the end of hostilities, but it was clearly the "United Provinces" that entered into the war with Brazil. (3) As the war was instrumental in the formation of Uruguay, the term "Argentine-Brazil War" is exclusionary and mildly misleading. I would recommend throwing in a sentence or two about references to the term "Argentine-Brazil War". Boneyard90 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So a quick look at this makes me think that either Cisplatine War or Argentine-Brazilian War would be OK. They both seem to be widely used in English sources, and they both seem to have their share of problems (potential Brazilian bias with the use of the Cisplatine War, confusion over the name of the state for Argentine-Brazilian). If I had to chose one though, I might support Cisplatine War, just because anybody can find bias in anything and this seems to be pretty minor compared to some discussions, and I'm more concerned about accuracy over the name of the state. We can't just assign a state a name it didn't have at a specific time period. Whichever is used, however, should have a redirect from the other. – Joe N 02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But as I pointed, the country was indeed named Argentina at that point. The 1826 Constitution, wich was in force during that time, refers to the country as the "Argentine Nation", not the "United Provinces...". I admit that the whole issue of the names held by the country at each point of history between 1810 and the reunification and full meaning of each organization of provinces is very twisted and I don't have the right sources to make it something clear and legible (I have history books, which do not go into the finer detail of the legal background, it's always battles and causes and consequences of events), but the specific point we are concerned about is clear: the nation waging the war under the command of Rivadavia was named Argentina. Yes, I know: that means we should change the infobox, and even the article itself of the United provinces clarifying its legal status (what it was, what it wasn't, when was it renamed, etc.). I'm aware of this flaw since some time ago, I haven't found yet the sources to fix this, but that's another issue. MBelgrano (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ow, there are no sources to support your claims and thus, this entire useless discussion... of course... how convenient, right?

P.S.: By the way, I'm really enjoying reading John Lynch's "Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas here: [73])". And to imagine that you made me lose a lot of precious time arguing with you about this tyrant's brutal regime (for the curious ones, I'd recommend chapter 6, "The Terror"). --Lecen (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not for the whole topic, but the specific thing has already been referenced: here is the Argentine Constitution of 1826, and even not knowing Spanish you will all recognize the "Nación Argentina" name at the very first article. You wanted a reliable source stating that country was named Argentina? There is one MBelgrano (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no! So, does that mean that all those history books (including Wikipedia with an article called United Provinces of South America) are all wrong? So, we should change that article's name to fix a mistake... but we can't do the same in here? Really? You're going to tell us now that the United Provinces were widely known then as "Argentina"? And that United Provinces not only wrong, but was not used? Are you going this far, Mbelgrano? --Lecen (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't bother to answer, your buddy IANVS gave us all the correct answer in Talk:United Provinces of South America#Answer!!

Here it is what he wrote: "Please understand the fact that this is an article about a historical period (1810-1831) when the Argentine State had some specific configurations. The article that covers this period of time is called "United Provinces of South America" (alternatively, "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata"), because of the two most common names this State had during this period (it was also called "Argentine Republic in 1826-27)."

Ow! So the two common names given were "United Provinces of South America" and "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata"?!! And "Argentine Republic" was only used between 1826 an 1827? So, there are two possibilities left: 1) You are trying to make us all of fools believing that since (to you, at least) we know nothing about Argentine history we are going to believe in any crap you tell us, and that includes calling a country for a name that used for... a year only. 2) Or you know nothing about your own country's history. Which one should we pick, huh? --Lecen (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The years 1826-1828 are, precisely, the years this war took place. In any case, the historical identity of the Argentine State since then, regardless its succesive formations, is not in doubt. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1825-28. Those are the dates. Won't hurt reading some history books before taking being part on this kind of discussions. Also, Brazil declared war at the end of 1825 to a country named "United Provinces" not "Argentine Republic". Needless to say, this discussion is futile. --Lecen (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of the name of Argentina, if we are going to take in consideration the actual names of the regions at the time of the conflict then "Cisplatine" shouldn't be used either. As this article already states, the 33 Orientals declared independence from Brazil and joined back the country they used to be a part of during the Congress of Florida. So, at the time of the conflict, it wasn't the "Cisplatine province" anymore. Even more, the war was fought precisely because they did not want to be the "Cisplatine province". Naming the war like this hurts the Uruguayan feelings. For a closer example, ask any native of the Faklands islands what would they think if we proposed to move "Faklands Islands" or "Faklands War" into names using "Malvinas". Of course, they talk in English so their usage would prevail anyway, but if they (or this wikipedia) had some other language, we wouldn't be acting any different. MBelgrano (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

At the danger of going off topic...

...to be fair, the Spanish-language name for the Falkland Islands is the Malvinas Islands, isn't it? :) The Spanish Wikipedia article does indeed refer to the conflict as the Guerra de las Malvinas. I don't regard that as unreasonable, as that's what Spanish language histories call it, and I certainly don't regard it as offensive for the Spanish wikipedia articles to follow that tradition. In a similar way, the English language wiki calls it the Falkland conflict. Both have links to accommodate the opposite phrase. If what you're suggesting is that the term Cisplatine War carries a particular racial or derogatory national slur against Uruguayans (as opposed to simply being an English language term they'd disagree with) that would be a different matter, of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ow! Now you (MBelgrano) don't want "Cisplatine War" because it would hurt the... Uruguayans' feelings?! Really?! You know, why don't you stick with one reason for a change? Or why don't you simply say "I don't like Cisplatine War and that's it and I'll do anything I can to prevent this article from changing to this name". And should know that during the war, towns were under Brazilian control, while the Argentine-Oriental army roamed through the countryside. Until 1828, there were general deputies and senators in the Brazilian parliament representing Cisplatina. So, there was a Cisplatine province.

Hchc2009, don't bother with "why it is called Malvinas in Spanish language Wikipedia, then?" Being contradictory is a trait of MBelgrano. And don't forget that it's not the name given by Brazilians, or by Argentines or by Uruguayans that matter, but which one is used in English-language books. Mbelgrano doesn't want "Cisplatine War" simply because in his mind if it's a name also used by Brazilians that means that it's simply wrong. I've wrote several articles and all of them acchieved Featured status (another is about to become a Featured status as we speak) and I've dealt with several editors, and always with pleasant results. Guess where I had troubles? Yep, articles where MBelgrano is active (that is, Platine War and this one now). Neither he does any kind of real contribution to these articles nor does he let anyone work on them, specially, if that person is a Brazilian. Perhaps someone should tell him that Brazil and Argentina aren't enemies for... uh... 150 years? He probably never heard of Mercosur too.

But who cares, right? Coming from a guy who made me lose my time in Platine War article arguing that Rosas was a kind, generous, democratic and fair elected president instead of a brutal tyrant. And I'm quite happy to see that in that discussion he brought John Lynch as a source, carefuly hiding an entire chapter of this historian's book about Rosas' atrocities. I'm getting tired of MBelgrano's behavior, of selecting pirces of text from books whihch he believes that fit his point of view, even if taken out of context. --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to find some Uruguayan sources saying this, that their 33 national heroes were just Argentine spies removing them from their beloved Brazil against their will, and then we talk. Even with Manuel Oribe, the decades after his defeat and the triumph of Fructuoso Rivera in the civil war, when the Uruguayan rejection to his action during that civil war was absolute... not even then they hold the cause of the 33 Orientals in doubt.

As for Malvinas, I thought this was already clear, but then let me add some clarification: what I was pointing is that the use itself of the "Malvinas" name s seen by the people in the islands as a tacit recognition of the Argentine sovereignthy claims (regardless of who's right in that dispute, which is beyond the purpose of this comparison). But now that I think of it, there's a better example to compare, within that topic. Port Stanley was captured during the war and renamed by Argentina as "Puerto Argentino", same as Brazil captured the Banda Oriental and renamed it as Cisplatine. Of course, it was renamed back to Stanley when the islands returned to British control. And, as it can be seen here, the usage of the name itself is contentious and involves a POV MBelgrano (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move to "Cisplatine War". Cisplatine war is the term most used in English therefore it should be the main title of the page. It's a no-brainer. The article is horrible, it has no sources and the neutrality is also questionable. Let's improve the article instead of waisting our time with this useless discussion. Regards to all, Paulista01 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, most common name in English (as confirmed by Google Books search). --Kotniski (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Google Books verifies Cisplatine War is the common name. Int21h (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Result

As it is described at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, the "result" entry of the infobox should be a very short sentence of two or three words, such as "X victory", or perhaps an equally short consequence, such as "X victory. Independence of X". If the result is something so complex that can't be properly described in such a short way (such as here, where neither of the countries in war achieved what they were fighting for, nor the result is a direct consequence of the outcomes of the battles), then the infobox should link to a section in the article where such complexity is fully described. The "See Aftermath" text is a better option than an 8 lines explanation in the infobox MBelgrano (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is still a very hot spot for debates and there is no way to easily describe the outcome of the war. Efforts were made to sistematize it in the format you proposed (X victory), but we are dealing with a situation where 2 opposing beligerants ended up having only parts of their claims accepted (Brazil, which kept its soverignty over the Missiones Orientales, sustained its right to free navigation in the Plata River and got war reparations payments; and Uruguay which obtained its full independence to Brazil and the United Provinces del Plata) and one belligerant whose claims were not satisfied (The United Provinces del Plata, who failed to annex Uruguay and failed to prevent Free Navigation in the Plata River).

It was chosen to state, briefly, the outcomes to each side in order to prevent edition wars and POV induced editions and to clearly state why it was merely a partial victory to some and a defeat to another.

I strongly believe we should keep it that way, as the Cisplatine War is a very hot issue in the historiographical debate; and even though the traditional nationalist argentinean historiography was discredited by almost all of the historians outside of Argentina, it is still taught mainstream in Argentina and its interpretation of the war distorts several facts of the war and its timeline (even claiming that Uruguay was annexed to the United Provinces, which did not occured in any timeline).

I hope you understand my point and we can reach a consensus over this issue.

-187.38.116.145 (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you quote the sources here? I looked at this source, Dicionário das batalhas brasileiras By Hernâni Donato, and it does not sustain what you are saying, in fact it does not even talk about the Cisplatine War on page 67. What is going on? Please be reasonable and impartial, the United Provinces did not lose the war, this is absurd, nobody did, the war ended with a treaty. Paulista01 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Donato quote was a mistake. I accidentaly pasted it instead of another quote. Thanks for noticing the mistake. I´ll fix it right away. -187.38.116.145 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't go out of topic. If the result is not something straightfowad as "X wins", if you can't explain it in one or two very short sentences, don't do it in the infobox. Do it at the "Aftermath" section, and explain the complexity in there. That the result is so far the only referenced part does not mean anything: simply move the references to that section, and go into more detail about what do they say. A "See Aftermath" link contains zero POV, and won't have any unless changed for another one.

Attempting to explain the complexity and multiple perspectves in a few short lines is doomed to failure, and all the attempts done so far are unadvisable. For example, see the current one: "with favorable terms to Brazil regarding to navigation on the Plata River". Was that, navigation of the rivers, what Brazil was fighting for in this war? A casual reader may understand so. MBelgrano (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the 3 main reasons Brazil was fighing the war was the right to free navigation in the Plata River (which was a central issue to the brazilian economy). The other 2 reasons was to keep soverignty over the Missiones Orientales and to prevent the United Provinces to re-annex the Banda Oriental (and more specifically, the Harbour-city of Montevideo) -187.38.116.145 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be straightfoward on this one: Brazil kept the control over Cisplatinian towns during the entire war; it managed to completely destroy the United Provinces' navy by the end of the conflict; however, it lost a province. That's not a win situation, not draw situation, that's a lose situation. Did the United Provinces win? No, it did not. It did not manage to annex Cisplatina, its true goal. The infobox should read simply: "1)Brazil loses Cisplatina; 2)Cisplatina becomes the sovereign nation of Uruguay". That's it. --Lecen (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Brazil had 3 objectives in that war. It succeeded in 2 out of 3. It makes no sense to withhold that information. Your proposal would be fine, if added the fact that Brazil kept the Missiones Orientales and the right to free navigation in the Plata River. -187.38.116.145 (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Three objectives according to whom? When the United Provinces government declared the annexation of Cisplatina the Brazilian government responded by declaring war. It had only one goal: keep Cisplatina at all costs. Anything else, if there was any, was secondary. --Lecen (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All the short "result" attempts and proposals I have seen so far are either misleading or inaccurate, this new one is no exception. It is always implicit, unless noted otherwise, that the result of a war is what the victor of the war was fighting for. A result that says "Brazil loses Cisplatina; Cisplatina becomes the sovereign nation of Uruguay" would confuse the casual reader into thinking that this was an independence war, meaning, a war between Uruguayans who wanted to be a free nation vs. Brazilians who wanted to keep it as part of Brazil, and that Uruguayans would have prevailed in such a conflict. Which is obviously not the case. "See aftermath", on the contrary, is free of any possible bias or misunderstandings. MBelgrano (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear to me like this was a military victory for Brazil, they didn't win a single land battle (lost the battles of Sarandi and Rincon in Uruguay) and the United Provinces went as far as successfully invading (Battles of Ituzaingo, Ombu, and Bacaycay) Rio Grande do Sud in southern Brazil with nearly 10,000 men no less; that sounds like quite a feat. Why isn't the Battle of Juncal mentioned in the article? I thought it was pretty significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.227.47 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) --In military book you can find this kind of war as "Pyrrhic war". The winner lost as much or more than the looser. United Provinces won the land and sea battles, but the high cost of the victory, and the trade crisis in Buenos Aires, the main port of the provinces, help the Empire wining in the diplomatic area were they get the sing of a peace treaty. In general the Provinces crisis was also because of the multifront wars. In the north against the spaniard crown, internally between the provinces and in the east against the Brazilian Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.183.127.107 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true. After the battle of Monte Santiago, the United Provinces lost their navy, for all practical purposes, since they could no longer deal with the Brazilian ships at high seas. Only skirmishes by corsaries could be undertaken from that time on. With naval supremacy, the Brazilian Navy imposed a harsh blockade right in front of Buenos Aires, controlling the mouth of the Plate river, which caused them serious economic consequences and this was quite important in the outcome of the conflict (http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm). This is was Sir Robert Gordon said to Lord Ponsonby: "The resources of this Empire seem to be immense and believing I that Brown - as great as he is - cannot aniquilate the Brazilian navy, you will simply have the blockade reestablished with even greater vigour". Though fighting with valour, the battles at land proved inconclusive, since the United Provinces did not manage to repel the Brazilian forces, nor had they means to do it. The two major towns in Uruguay (Banda Oriental) were kept under the control of the Empire of Brazil throughout the conflict, Montevideo and Colonia. Contrary to what it is usually played out by the Argentine historiography, the outcome of the conflict in favour of Brazil was not the result of British intervention in favour of Brazil, but the harsh reality on the ground: the Brazilian naval supremacy and the lack of means to expel the Brazilian forces from Uruguay. Britain was interested in keeping free trade and preventing the emergence of a local power. They were as much interested in contaning the United Provinces as they were in containing Brazil. Certainly the United Provinces did not manage to win the conflict, as Uruguay was not incorporated as this is what was intended by them. They did not manage to expel the Brazilian troops from the two major Uruguayan towns and the blockade was imposing severe economic consequences, which could aggravate in the future. The Empire of Brazil did not win it either. The conflict was rather balanced and the buffer state of Uruguay came out as the most adequate intermediate solution. http://www.reocities.com/ulysses_leal/ituzaingo.html Grenzer22 (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)- 1th- It is hardly find when the Pronvinces fighted without corsary forces. The strongest navy in the emisphere were the Imperial Navy from Brasil, even when Brasil lost navals battles, were fighting with big advantages. Lost Monte Santiago battle hardly changed the Province situation in the sea and river. The most important naval forces from the Provinces were not in the formal navy, but in their corsary forces. 2nd It is a Phyrryc war model in both sides. Brasilian and argentinian military academys teach almost the same models. 3rd- The Result of the war was a Phyrric militar vitory of the United Province. The blockade was importan to reach the peace treaty. no doubt about it. also the high cost of the military resourses and the multifront war of the provinces. I was a matter of choice between conflicts. The internal civil wars and the war against the spaniard empire were claiming troops, weapons, leaders, gold to the United Provinces. Brasil keep in diplomacy only the territory what was taken by military during the war. but as an enciclopedic data, the result of the war is the military winning of the United Provinces. The consecuences, of course, were others. BUT IT IS HOW EVERY SINGLE PHYRRIC VICTORY ENDS. -one more thing, Argentina Nation and the State are diferent things. The members of the United Provinces were all from the same nation, but were no part of the same National Estate at that time, thats why were at internat war one against each other.

Brazil won the Naval war. This was very critical. Juncal had no importance, since the Brazilian Navy was much larger than the 3rd division of smaller ships which the Argentine managed to beat. "To a navy which consisted of 69 warships and 22 packets and transports, manned by 10600 officers and men, the loss of [...] its smallest armed vessels made little difference to the ultimate balance of power" (Brian Vale, A War Betwixt Englishmen Brazil Against Argentin on the River Plate 1825-1830, Brian Vale, I. B. Tauris, page 137, chapter 14). The Battle of Santiago, on the other hand, was crutial, since the 2 best ships of Argentina were sunk. The other one (the 25 de Mayo) had already been sunk at Lara Quilmes. Brian Vale again summed it up well: "[...] Juncal had done little to push the Empire in the direction of peace. Now at Monte Santiago, two of Argentina's precious brigs-of-war had been destroyed and the cream of its Navy roundly defeated. The Brazilian Navy's overwhelming superiority at sea had been reasserted in a way which neither William Brown's audacity or Ramsay's newly purchased frigates could seriously challenge". See this link too: http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-026.htm .

On land, Brazil did "win" battles (Las Cañas, Padre Filiberto, etc). The line between "victory" and indecisive result is a blurry one anyway (so much so that Ombu and Vacacaí are considered skirmishes without decisive result; at Ituzaingó, Brazil retreated, it did not capitulate, the Army was kept basically intact, not to mention the troops in Colónia and Montevideo, which were supported by our Navy, and thus difficult to be expelled; see this link: http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-025.htm ).

In short: after Argentina joined the war effort, the Brazilian Navy had a series of battles, with the Argentine fighting with great valour, but in the end, losing their best ships at Lara Quilmes (June 1826) and Monte Santiago (April 1827), they lost their Navy, for all practical purposes. In 1828, it was already felt. Argentina began to lose basically all of the Naval encounters (due to their smaller ships, etc) and so with the battles at land. Rivera entered Misiones against the orders he had (Este trabajoso acuerdo enhebrado entre Ponsonby y Lavalleja vía Trápani y Fraser estuvo a punto de quebrarse por los planes de Fructuoso Rivera, un oriental que estaba distanciado de Lavalleja y deseaba combatir al Brasil con apoyo de los caudillos de las Provincias Unidas. Entre abril y mayo de 1828 la conquista de las Misiones (que habían estado en manos de las fuerzas imperiales) por parte de Rivera comprometió la suspensión de hostilidades acordada entre las Provincias Unidas y Brasil, mientras se realizaban las tratativas de paz. Dispuesto a apoyar las gestiones de Ponsonby, Lavalleja envió fuerzas al mando de Manuel Oribe para impedir la invasión de Rivera al territorio brasileño (5) http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-033.htm ), and his incursion into basically empty Misiones acted against peace (which was longed by the United Provinces), not in favour of it.Ajuricaba (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Cisplatine War → Argentine-Brazilian War – There are 3.160 google book results for "Argentine-Brazilian War" and only 802 for "Cisplatine War". Plus, the new name may be better for readers: any reader can recognize Argentina and Brazil, and understand that this was a war between both (actually, they were the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata and the Empire of Brazil back then, predesesor states of modern Argentina and Brazil, but nobody is that technical). On the other hand, "Cisplatina" was a former province of the Empire of Brazil, and hardly anyone beyond history experts will recognize that name beforehand.

Note, by the way, that I'm not requesting to undo the former move request, this is a new one. The old one was from "Argentina-Brazil War" (names of countries, not demonyms), which had just 98 results, and I'm not asking for it. Cambalachero (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I had the username "MBelgrano" back then, my account has been renamed since then, as pointed at my user page Cambalachero (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The name proposed is misleading. There was no Argentina in 1825, but the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. What's next? The United States of America in 1658? And let's not forget that there was an actual "Argentine-Brazilian War": the Platine War, which occurred in 1851, more than 20 years after the Cisplatine War, between the Empire of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation. Lecen (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is not written in the XIX century, but the XXI one. The United Provinces are a predecesor state of modern Argentina, and it is universally accepted that way (just as the Empire of Brazil is a predecesor state of modern Brazil, which is not an empire). Some people date the birth of Argentina in 1810, in the May Revolution, and others in 1816, in the declaration of independence; in any case the difference is pointless here. From that point on, the different names using during the national organization are just technical terms, unadvised in Wikipedia. A name that is common and simpler to readers is better than an obscure but "technically correct" name, that's why we have a article named Dog and not "Canis lupus familiaris". As for 1851, it does not matter how a war may be called, but how it is actually called. If nobody refers to 1851 as the "Argentine-Brazilian War", then the point is moot. With that logic, the name "Cisplatine War" may be also used for the Luso-Brazilian invasion that established the Cisplatine province. Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The name "Cisplatine War" is neutral, since it relates to a defunct state, not two countries. Beside, there was no Argentina back then. Rafael Cruz (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: this comment was formulated by the IP 187.111.143.45, whose sole contribution was to comment here (and, strangely enough, not even an hour after the opening of this move request). There are 0 edits by user Rafael Cruz. Cambalachero (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I said that the new name would be more harmful than helpful. --201.27.179.95 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: The sole edits by this IP are here (see), first to vandalize the move request and now to oppose. Again, not even an hour after the opening of this move request Cambalachero (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Google Books results, it seems historical analysis of the sources gives vast preference to the term "Argentine-Brazilian War"; however, 21st century books give some more support (by very little) to the term "Cisplatine War". Added that there is the Platine War (albeit, in Spanish-world historiography it is considered part of the "Guerra Grande" or Uruguayan Civil War in English), which could also be considered an "Argentine-Brazilian War". The problem with "Cisplatine War" is that it is obviously a Brazilian take on the matter, which would be like trying to impose the term "Brazilian War" (the Spanish name) for the English article. Given that I have no strong opinion on this subject, I render a neutral vote. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. But I might support if an en dash (–) were proposed instead of a hyphen (-). See the well-established guideline WP:DASH, at WP:MOS. Noetica^Tea? 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I was just about to say the same thing, coming from the centralised RM list. The en dash is required. Tony (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done. That was a technical detail, that could had been fixed directly. Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Comment (Regarding Civility) - A bit of a civility between users here would go a long way. Per Wiki Etiquette. I see thought out points being mentioned and while the less exemplifying points are a bit vague they should not be rudely abashed by claims of sock-puppetry or intentional disruption (no matter how ambiguously these claims are stated). Assume good faith Judicatus (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. As per Lecen. The use of Argentine–Brazilian War could be ambiguous with respect to the Cisplatine War and the Platine War. Both terms are widely used in history books of English literature, but according to a quick search on Google Scholar, Cisplatine War out-tops Argentine–Brazilian War. Nevertheless, both terms are duly exposed in the article's lead and, therefore, I see no reason to rename it. Not to mention the consensus achieved just about a year and a half ago (December 2010) to rename the article to Cisplatine War. Felipe Menegaz 18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Google Scholar prefers 'Cisplatine War' (58 hits) over 'Argentine-Brazilian War' (20 hits). Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' or 'Argentine-Brazilian War of 1825' (or '1826' or '(1826-1828)' ), which highlights the precision problem with the proposed title already raised by others. LaTeeDa (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not true. "Cisplatine War" has 829 hits while "Argentine-Brazilian War" has (3170 hits). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, that "Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War'" is an outright lie: there's a single result for that search. As for Google Scholar, 58 and 20 are too tiny to take any reasonable conclusion from them. The only conclusion from such numbers is that this war is an obscure topic in the English-speaking world, as already pointed in the "Legacy" section Cambalachero (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That Google Scholar prefers "Cisplatine War" (58 hits) over 'Argentine-Brazilian War' (20 hits) is true. It might suggest that recent English language scholarship prefers the former title. Google Scholar weights more towards more recent scholarship than Google Books. As another editor noted, Cisplatine War also gets a preference from 21st century books 142 to 49. So, seems that more recent scholarship is preferring 'Cisplatine War'.

Also, with calling my comment an outright lie, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same. In my case, I think you misread what I wrote. I wrote "Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' or 'Argentine-Brazilian War of 1825' (or '1826' or '(1826-1828)' )...", which is completely accurate. "Argentine-Brazilian War (1825" alone gets 988 Google Books hits, so together these terms get enough hits to count as 'some'. It is fair criticism of me that 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' shouldn't be on my list, because it only gets one hit. I included it because it was the forth response in my search, so I assumed it was significant. My mistake. LaTeeDa (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. for all the reasons advanced in favor of the move to the current title. I've encountered no change in the sources over the past year. • Astynax ^talk 08:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been pointed in the opening that this proposed name is not to the former name, but to a third one, so the reasons of the previous move request do not apply here. "Cisplatine War" has more results than "Argentina-Brazil War", but "Argentine-Brazilian War" is even more used than either options. Cambalachero (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, and although the proposed title differs, the reasoning remains the same: i.e., that "Cisplatine" is neutral (it is a generic description of the sphere of the conflict), is unambiguous and is the frequent preference in scholarly publications. • Astynax ^talk 17:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Daniel Stowell

Please use this section to discuss any concerns with the aforementioned professional.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Stowell cites as a reference for his statement the following: "Ron Seckinger, The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 59-73." The book "Balancing Evils Judiciously" focuses on Zeph Kingsley, but throughout the book Stowell explains on events mentioned in the Kingsley writings. One of these is the war between Brazil and what Kingsley calls "the Free Republic of Buenos Ayres" (i.e., the Cisplatine War). This is the full text of Stowell's statement:

• "The war between Brazil and the Republic of Buenos Aires stemmed from a longstanding Spanish and Portuguese rivlary over the Banda Oriental, the area of modern Uruguay. In 1816 Portuguese troops from Brazil occuppied the area during the Spanish American wars of independence. In 1821 the area was incorporated into Brazil as the Cisplatine Province. In 1825, the Republic of Buenos Aires took advantage of a rebellion in the area to claim the Banda Oriental as part of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. This action amounted to a declaration of war, and Brazil reciprocated six weeks later. Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait, the war went disastrously for Brazil. Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries."

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

---

• This is the quote you so much wanted to post there:

Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries.|Daniel Stowell}}

Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".

This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.

Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:

• The Brazilian Armed Forces blockaded Buenos Aires and caused serious economic consequences to them (Buenos Aires was basically the only place for interaction with the outside world, and the United Provinces were heavily dependent on exporting and importing); you can read about these consequences from the Argentine themselves ("Los efectos de la guerra en la economía de las Provincias Unidas", http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm). Brazil lost some naval battles, but after the battle of Monte Santiago their navy was reduced practically to nothing, and they could no longer operate in high seas; Brazil had the naval supremacy right in front of Buenos Aires.

• When it comes to the operations on land, if Rivera penetrated the territory of the Missões, if they won some battles (Sarandi and Ituzaingó), the results were, in fact, inconclusive, since they lacked the means to repel the Brazilian Forces, so much so that the two major cities of Uruguay at that time, Colonia and Montevideo remained under Brazilian control throughout the conflict.

In short, the quote you so much want to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed.187.36.81.70 (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there aren't many good books in Portuguese about this war. Unless we're talking about old books written in the early 20th century. For what I could've noticed from the Wikipedia in Spanish, the Argentine books seem to be quite good. Having said that, I wanted to make it clear that I'm not an expert on this war. I've read about it over and over, but not in detail. I could discuss about the Paraguayan War but I couldn't do the same here. Not at the present time, at leat.

The main question is: who won the war? Who lost it? Was it a draw? Well, I don't believe it was a draw. Brazil had a province and lost it. It lost an entire province. This is a defeat. Was it a military defeat? No, it wasn't. Did the United Provinces won the war? No, it didn't. In fact, it came out of the war far worse then when it began. Did the rebels in Cisplatina won the war? No, they didn't. Their goal was not the independence of Cisplatina, but its annexation to the United Provinces. This is why the war is known as Cisplatine War and not "Uruguayan War of Independence".

What about the military side? There were land battles in the very beginning, that is, in 1825. The Brazilian troops were, indeed, repeately defeated. They were, however, defeated because the rebels troops came dressed with their Brazilian uniforms and attacked the unsuspected Brazilians. Regardless, those were defeats. There was also the Battle of Ituzaingó, where 6,000 Brazilians and 10,000 soldiers from the United Province and rebel Cisplatinians clashed. Who won? No one. It was a tactical draw. However, it was a strategic defeat for Brazil. After all, the Brazilians failed on expelling enemy forces from their own territory. What about in the sea? By the end of the war the United Provinces' fleet was completed destroyed. Thus, Brazil was victorious at sea. Did it change anything? No, it didn't. Brazil still lost Cisplatina.

And the quote? I can't understand why the quote is there. It's out of context and it doens't explain well enough what is talking about. It was clearly placed in there by a Hispanic-American editor who wanted to show off what the United Provinces did. And the unknown editor complaining is correct when he said that it was said by a non-expert. However, I don't believe that the quote is the main issue in here. The article as a whole should be reworked and improved. Removing of keeping the quote won't resolve the main issue, which is the article itself. --Lecen (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To IP editor: Your original research is interesting, but not acceptable in Wikipedia (Please see WP:OR). Also, your ad hominem attack on Daniel Stowell holds no ground. He is a professional historian whose credibility cannot be challenged simply by your opinion or by your analysis of primary sources. Again, I encourage you to contact him ([74]) if you have any concerns with his work.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

He is not an expert on the subject, nor is the book he wrote specifically addressing the conflict. You picked up a quote from someone who is not a military historian, nor a specialist on this conflict, nor in the history of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, no matter his profession his opinion is simply wrong and gives a partial and inaccurate view of the conflict.187.36.81.70 (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, pointing out he is not an expert on the conflict or the fact that he did not write a book about the conflict is not a personal attack on him at all.187.36.81.70 (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You cannot delete sourced content from the article without a good reason. If you have sources that you want to use to improve the article, go ahead and do it. Simply threatening that you have such sources is child's play and counter-productive. Stowell's quote is from a reliable secondary source and a neutral party to the conflict, and I honestly doubt you know him well-enough to claim his statement is "partial and inaccurate". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the quote should be reformulated into text appropiate for a wikipedia article, and then cite the historian as a reference. Using a quote as a replacement of such text is not a good editing style, and should be fixed whenever possible. Cambalachero (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To MarshalN20: it is not about threatening. Due to the complexity of the conflict, one can but expect diverse views on it. An opinion from someone who is NOT an expert on the conflict in question, like Stowell, should not be referenced as some kind of authority at all.187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't oppose the suggestion of the user Cambalachero, the quote could reformulated into text appropriate and then cited as a reference. The way it was posted it sounded like some final judgment on the matter, which is wrong, since Stowell is no expert on the conflic, no military historian and he has not even written a book about it.187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion. The quote is a good summary of the events, and is fine as a big-text quote on the side. Beep beep, boop boop.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not a good summary of the events at all, and it is misleading as a big-text quote. Stowell is no expert or authority on the subject, and the course of events was much more complex than his words imply. I wouldn't mind Cambalachero or some other user turning the quote into an appropriate short text, with a reference to Stowell.187.36.81.70 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

First you claim that it's a bad source, and now you claim it is good but that the article should display it how you want it to be displayed. I do not agree.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't distort what I said. It is not a good source. It does not come from a military historian, nor from someone expert on the subject. If it is to be posted in the article, though, I think it would be better if it were posted as suggested by Cambalachero.187.36.81.70 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To claim that Daniel Stowell is not reliable because he is not a military historian is a complete absurdity. You keep repeating that Stowell is incorrect, and yet you bring no evidence to prove otherwise. Where are your reliable "military historians" that contradict Stowell's statement? And before you do it again, please stop filling up talk spaces with your original research. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

An opinion from an uninvolved editor: Daniel Stowell's collection of Zephianiah Kingsley's writings are a primary source and should be treated as such. Stowell simply edited and annotated these writings, whereas the true author is Kingsley who was writing from that time period. Kingsley's opinion of the conflict is his opinion(ie. primary source) and unless backed by a secondary source is the opinion of a Florida planter/slave owner, which in the eyes of Wikipedia would disqualify it as a reliable source.

Per Wikipedia:Primary, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

As such, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to what the poster MarshalN20 is claiming, I am a responsible poster, and I stand for neutrality and impartiality as much as possible. Don't distort what I said MarshalN20. I did not say Stowell is a good source. He is not. It does not come from someone expert on the subject, nor from a military historian, he never wrote about the Cisplatine War (the book is not specifically about the conflict).

As a proof of my willingness to compromise, I agreed on posting it as suggested by Cambalachero, i.e, not as a big-quote text, which is entirely misleading. And I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts. If the Brazilian army was weak, so was the Argentine army. If the Brazilian army did not have control of events, neither did the United Provinces army. They did not expel Brazilian troops stationed in Uruguay nor did they put an end to the blockade: on the contrary, by the end of the conflict the United Provinces lacked a fleet.

MarshalN20 posted this from Stowell: "Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait". As one can see, Kingsley gave apparently a positive portrait of Brazil during that conflict. One can see Kingsley had a positive portrait. As mentioned Stowell is not an expert on the subject, posting his opinion as a big-text quote is misleading, so much so that Lecen has agreed with me on it.

A final note, I'm not a nationalist. I just don't want anti-Brazilian sentiment to distort what happened. My comment in the page of MarshalN20 relates to the fact that from what his editing suggests, if the United Provinces had paraded in the capital of Brazil like Brazilian troops did in Buenos Aires, he would not hesitate in posting a pic of it. I've never cared to post a depiction of the Brazilian troops in Buenos Aires during the Platine War, because I'm not a nationalist. And this is what I was trying to show to him.187.36.81.70 (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The battle of Caseros has nothing to do in this discussion, it was decades later and during another conflict. Stay on topic, please. Cambalachero (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

He keeps deviating from the topic because he can't answer it beyond his nationalist rant. Again, I ask, where is the IP editor's "military historian" who contradicts the information provided by Stowell?

The only response he provides: "I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts".

It's such an obvious WP:OR breach. IP editor needs to read WP:NOTTRUTH, and some of you may need a refresh on it as well.

By the way, I sent Kansas Bear a response to his comment in his talk page. As I wrote to him, the statement I am using from Stowell is a direct quote from the historian. He then proceeds to cite his statement with Ron Seckinger's The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building. Stowell's statement is not a primary source.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting myself. I am not a nationalist. What I pointed out is that Stowell is not an expert on the subject he never wrote a book on it, and there are many other opinions besides his. Whatever he thinks of the conflict is in no way a final judgment on it contrary to what MarshalN20 is trying to make it to be.

Look for the history of the conflict, at the end the United Provinces did not have a fleet like they did at the beginning, and the blockade was still in place. The Brazilian performance was not a "disaster" as Stowell claimed it to be. Kingsley, quoted by MarshalN20, even showed a positive appreciation of Brazil. There are many other opinions, you just have to read the literature on the conflict, as I said, the literature on the conflict, not some book which is not even about the conflict in itself.187.36.81.70 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I ask, where is the IP editor's "military historian" who contradicts the information provided by Stowell?

Also, it's important to note that the "disaster" part was never in the article. I only took the last two sentences of Stowell's statement, which are a good description of what ultimately ended up happening. What matters here is that Stowell is a professional historian, secondary source, third party (USA), and even cites his statement with a specialized book on the subject.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

No, what matters is that Stowell is not: an expert on the subject nor has written a book on it, his area is not the history of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. His quote is a misleading simplification of the subject.187.36.81.70 (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a military historian, but a historian who worked with Latin American history and wrote about it (Ron L Seckinger):

"But in its major test of the 1820s-the Banda Oriental dispute-British policy proved less than efficacious. Great Britain failed to prevent the outbreak of war, suffered severe commercial losses due to the Brazilian blockade of the Plata, and could not mediate a settlement until both sides had come to realize that a military solution was not feasible'." p. 26, you can access it here: http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/hist/South%20American%20Power%20Politics%20during%20the%201820s.pdf

As you can see, the situation was more complex.187.36.81.70 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That in no way contradicts what Stowell wrote. The funny part is that Seckinger is the source cited by Stowell. Trying to use Seckinger against Stowell is completely pointless.

Again, for the fifth time, please provide a reliable secondary source who contradicts the information provided by Stowell.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It does contradict, since it shows clearly that the Brazilian armed forces of that time were still able to counter the United Provinces, no matter how weak or disorganised they may have been, since they managed to impose a blockade of the Plata and since no military solution was feasible on the part of the United Provinces.187.36.81.70 (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That in no way contradicts what Stowell wrote.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It clearly does. This is from an Argentine site specialized on the history of Argentina (http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-026.htm):

"En síntesis, ninguno de los beligerantes podía decidir la guerra a su favor. Esto se reflejaba en las declaraciones del enviado Ponsonby al ministro Canning, que hacían una radiografía de la crítica situación financiera y militar atravesada por ambos beligerantes".

"In short, none of the countries could decide the war. This was reflected in the words of Ponsonby to Canning, in which he made a critical assessment of the military and financial situation faced by both sides".

As you can see, it is biased to say that only the Brazilian side had problems. So did the United Provinces. So much so that if Brazil did not expel the fighters from the Banda Oriental, neither did the United Provinces: as I said both Colonia and Montevideo remained under the control of Brazil. And by the end of the conflict only Brazil had a fleet so to say, the United Provinces relied on the activities of corsairs after the battle of Monte Santiago.187.36.81.70 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Both ones must be detailed. If the article says that it was a stalemate but describes only the Argentine problems, it would be describing a Brazilian victory. That's why the Brazilian problems should be described as well. It should be mentioned as well that Manuel Dorrego proposed that the Orientals vote themselves which country they wanted to belong to; but this proposal was strongly rejected by Lord Ponsonby Cambalachero (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to pointing out that Brazil had problems. The events of the war speak for themselves IMO, Brazil clearly had problems. I just don't agree with the Stowell quote; if it is to be used, then it should be put into the format of a text, that would be the best.187.36.81.70 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

References

First Argentine-Brazilian War

The term "Argentine-Brazilian War" has a large number of reliable sources that use it. Please see [75], with 2,490 results. Most sources tend to attach the date of the conflict next to the name, and others simply use the term "First" prior to the war's name (which is what I have also done in the article). This name is also much closer to the Spanish name of "Guerra del Brasil" (Brazilian War). Lastly, the term "Guerra del Cisplatina" is an invented Spanish term, and should not be used in the article. All the best.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

See above Talk:Cisplatine War#Requested move (2012), where a proposal to move the article to Argentine-Brazilian War was not successful. It seems likely that, if opinions remain the same as in April, the editors here would also oppose First Argentine-Brazilian War as a title. Though that title already exists as a redirect to this one. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a move request. No reason exists as to why this widely known title for the conflict should be removed from the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I take it this is your response to a recent edit by Lecen, where he removed that wording from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing is the name of the article, which by definition can be only 1. Another thing is the name or names that the topic of the article may be known about, which can be two or more (as in this case). Besides, the article should point both the name/s used in English, and the name/s used in the countries involved if their language is not English (in this case, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay); the name/s in English may or may not be direct translations of those other names. Cambalachero (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cisplatine War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111203205317/http://www.uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Portal.Base/Web/verContenido.aspx?ID=201417 to http://www.uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Portal.Base/Web/verContenido.aspx?ID=201417
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813051915/http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/MotM.htm to http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/motm.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)