Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Result of the move discussion

What happens to the votes here? I count 9 x 8 to support move winning. Where's the lawyer trick here? And the claim that the new titles has move views is entirely false, as you can see it here September and here October. In reality Paraguayan War dropped about 50% in count views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.14.232.174 (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussions is not about counting votes, it's about assessing the consensus. You may be interest by some of the discussion at the closing admin's talk page where he has elaborated on his closure. Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, -Ilhador-, but a move request is not based on votes, but on actual arguments. And if "War of the Triple Alliance" had more hits than "Paraguayan War" is because of articles such as Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil (written by Astynax and me) that were TFAs. They are wonderful to give a boost to views per day to related articles. Anyway, -Ilhador-, nice new name account. --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance had more hits because that is the WP:COMMONNAME of it in English. Not to tarnish your ego of course; I am sure the articles you mention are nice. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When the redirect gets more direct hits than the article by a factor of 3:1 then its a sure sign that the article isn't at the common name. I note the closer is not electing to respond to that point. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What's more, the closer's rationale was not impartial: he added his own argument for the close rather than doing it impartially. Funny that Lecen complains about the motives of those seeking to go with the established name while calling me a liar in what is currently the top section of this talk page. Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I have commented to that effect on his talk page, his research and own argument is effectively adding as a supervote. I have contemplated an RFC for that reason. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Note as well the recent contributions of Lecen. Questionable as it may be, the closing admin pointed that "both alternatives are widely used". Yet, Lecen goes at all articles that link to "War of the Triple Alliance" and change the link to "Paraguayan War", as if the closed discussion had determined it to be the only correct name. Oddly enough, now he's also changing "John VI of Portugal" to "Joao VI of Portugal", despite the move request (which included a RFC) ending in John VI. Of course, that was a result he opposed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The bad faith revealed here is disturbing. I called no one a liar. If one person claims that he or she studied the subject and never heard the term "Paraguayan War" before it means that she lacks complete knowledge of what is being discussed. Second, I didn't touch any Argentine or Paraguayan article that mentions the Paraguayan War as "War of the Triple Alliance". Third, I only changed a few Brazilian articles that mentions "João VI" because that's how the sources used on those articles describe him. But keep digging, people. This will be helpful later. You too, MBelgrano. --Lecen (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't count votes, but a opinion of an administrator can decide an entire discussion. What a wonderful logic.-Ilhador- (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Lecen, actually, you did call Nytend a liar (clearly enough that I doubt anyone other than you can deny it), and have done it again.

• Nyttend wrote, "I've never heard this term before, despite studying the history of the period."
• Lecen replied, "If you never heard then you certainly never studied the history of the period."

This little trend of "you're ignorant if you don't agree with me" is a bully tactic used by Lecen throughout these discussions. Trying to harrass a user by using his former username is also not a very WP:AGF way to behave in here.

I also have noticed such edits as the one done to the Chincha Islands War article (I have it on my watchlist), in which Lecen (as noted by Cambalechero) changed the terms linking "War of the Triple Alliance" to "Paraguayan War" despite both titles are acceptable. Lecen's actions in this case further serve as evidence of the overwhelming support for the term "War of the Triple Alliance" over the term "Paraguayan War". After all, there must have been a good reason as to why this article was name "War of the Triple Alliance" for 8 years.

Not a single discussion (as can be read in the archives) dealt with any problems in the title. Everyone understood what "War of the Triple Alliance" refered to, and the closing admin's decision to validate the idea that it is a "confusing" term only reflects a minority opinion presented by a specific group of users. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Links to this article

There is a discussion about the correct way to link to this article at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War (if the diversity of names should be respected, or if the same name should be used everywhere). All users interested may contribute to the discussion and help reach a consensus. Cambalachero (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Too many images tag

as added by Cambalachero at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paraguayan_War&diff=prev&oldid=453385866. I'd just like to say that there are indeed quite a lot of images, but they seem to be well selected and for me they enhance the article. Would anyone support removing this tag? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're correct, Richard, but I took the liberty to remove some of the picures with Brazilians. --Lecen (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There are still some sections with text sandwiched between images, which is rejected by MOS:IMAGES and the reason I placed the tag in the first place. Cambalachero (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

I learned a great deal about the Triple Alliance War several yars ago from this article. Now it looks more like a newspaper editorial than an encyclopedic article. it doesn't even give a chronological account of the progress of the war, and the two main battles (Tuyuti, curupaiti) are barely mentioned without any context. I don't really care if the article is POV or not, as an smart reader can distinguish facts from BS, but one would expect the article to give a complete and organized account of the course of the war. I think we would bette off by just restoring a older version (circa 2005) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.197.171 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The article does present a chronological account of the war. If there is something missing (and you haven't specified what is "incomplete"), please improve the article by adding the material, with references, to the article. • Astynax ^talk 18:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the infobox. The article should follow the same flow. From reading just the article is impossible to tell if, say, the battle of Tuyuti happened before or after the battle of Curupaiti, and whether these battles happened before or after the fall of Humaita. The article just throws names of battles and places here and there, assuming the reader already knows the order in which they happened and the effect they have in the overall campaign. this has noting to do with POV but just with basic article quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.208.197.171 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We know that and we appreciate your concern, but we are merely volunteers here. We can't improve every single article. And even with did that in here, we would certainly face Hispanic-American Wikipedians accusing us of "Brazilian POV". --Lecen (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the article on Hispanophobia might be closer to your interests, Lecen. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are many spelling errors that I don't have the time or patience to correct. Just thought I'd mention it. 66.41.148.107 (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of The Economist as source

The Econimist is being used as source for stating that:

Conversely, popular belief in Paraguay, and Argentine revisionism since the 1960s give a preponderant role to the interests of the British Empire, although there is no historical basis for this.

in the article. I firmly doubt the The Economists merits to be used as a single source to discredit the thesis of interests of the British Empire as the origin of the war. The Economist editorial line have for years been hostile to Argentina, both for Argentinas internal economic policies and because of the Falklands dispute, where it has to be said The Economist has given full support to the goverment of Britian. Dentren | ^Talk 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dentren. Using "The Economist" as a source for this claim is completely unreliable. At best, the source is good to know about different perspectives, but not as a reliable reference. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• "During the 1960s, revisionists influenced by both left-wing dependency theory and, paradoxically, an older, right-wing nationalism (especially in Argentina) focused on Britain’s role in the region. They saw the war as a plot hatched in London to open up a supposedly wealthy Paraguay to the international economy. With more enthusiasm than evidence revisionists presented the loans contracted in London by Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil as proof of the insidious role of foreign capital... Little evidence for these allegations about Britain’s role has emerged, and the one serious study to analyze this question has found nothing in the documentary base to confirm the revisionist claim" Source: page 16 of Kraay, Hendrik; Whigham, Thomas L. (2004). I die with my country: perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864–1870. Dexter, Michigan: Thomson-Shore. ISBN 978-0-8032-2762-0

There it is. --Lecen (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an improved source.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Another source: "There is no evidence that Britain actively and enthusiastically sought Paraguay's defeat." (page 25) "Britain - and Britain's supposed imperialist ambitions - can no longer be made the scapegoat for the Paraguayan War. The prime responsibility for the War lay with Brazil, Argentina, to a lesser extent Uruguay, and of course, sadly, Paraguay itself." (page 27) Source: Leslie Bethell's The Paraguayan War (1864-1870). INSTITUTE OF LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES. UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.

These sources are much better and should replace The Economist. Now we would need to see if there are any contemporary source availing the "revisionist" view of the 1960s. In particular we need to look at Spanish-language and Portuguese sources. –Dentren | ^Talk 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I don't need a Russian book to write about the Soviet war in Afghanistan. --Lecen (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I do fully agree, unfortunately the historiographic and political universe of Anglo universities tend to favour certain types of academic production. There is nothing to be surprised about, in all societies knowledge production is somewhat biased. Dentren | ^Talk 11:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

War trophies

I have been looking for sources about the war trophies that the brazilian president returned to Paraguay in 1975 and could not find anything. The treaty text does not mention them. Does anyone know where to find them ? Lgtrapp (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is wrong anyway, the treaty was signed but not all of the trophies were returned. I'll edit that. Gywon (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Brazilian government did not return any war trophy, but the Paraguayan national archives that had been taken during the war (although, oddly, quite a few people over the internet claim that Brazil kept those archives to this day, when it didn't). And this occurred in 1980, not 1975. --Lecen (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I can be wrong, but I think that Brazil returned some trophies, including the Solano Lopes' sword. Gywon (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Any sources for that (archive and sword) ? There is this recent article that mentions Paraguay wanting a cannon back [1]. Lgtrapp (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the sword has been returned, but many of the trophies were not returned, including the famous Cañon Cristiano, a cannon that was made of the bells of all the paraguayan churches. Jc530

It was made from church bells of Asuncion, according to the above article.Parkwells (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Consequences

The following text is currently in the (somewhat lengthy) introduction of this article. I wonder if it would be more appropriate in the Consequences of the war section.

In Brazil, the war helped bring about the end of slavery, moved the military into a key role in the public sphere, and caused a ruinous increase of public debt, which took a decade to pay off, seriously reducing the country's growth. It has been argued the war played a key role in the consolidation of Argentina as a nation-state. That country became South America's wealthiest nation, and one of the wealthiest in the world, by the early 20th century. It was the last time that Brazil and Argentina took such an interventionist role in Uruguay's internal politics.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Working on editing

First round through, trying to improve organization and English, from a non-specialist in this area.Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, I've found myself going through this article, with an eye toward improving its readability and organization.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, trying changing the name of the article to the common English Language name of the War of the Triple Alliance, and ask yourself why this article is kept at a fringe name as used in Brazil but few other places. WCM_email 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

The following currently begins the Casualties section:

At the end of the war, with Paraguay suffering severe shortages of weapons and supplies, López reacted with draconian attempts to keep order, ordering troops to kill any combatant, including officers, who talked of surrender. Paranoia prevailed in the army, and soldiers fought to the bitter end in a resistance movement, resulting in more destruction in the country.

This subject matter seems more appropriate to some other section, probably about the later stages of the war. Or is it already covered there?

- Zulu Kane (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering about something I have not seen discussed in any casualty estimates. Most estimates seem to be calculated by taking a pre-war population figure and subtracting a post-war population figure. Paraguay lost significant amounts of territory in this war. Therefore, surely a post-war Paraguayan census would not include any population still living inside that lost territory. But that doesn't mean those people are all dead; that post-war population would presumably be included in any Argentinian or Brazilian census figures. So, it seems plausible that this territorial loss of population might account for the most extreme casualty estimates.

I presume (or hope) that the more scholarly estimates cited did attempt to factor in this territorial loss. But I don't have access to those papers.

It goes without saying, that even the most moderate casualty estimates represent a catastrophic loss for Paraguay. I do not mean to minimize the tragedy. I'm simply curious about the wildly different estimates.

- Zulu Kane (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Those sound like plausible factors, however, I don't recall a source that gives an analysis of the population loss due to territorial annexations. Much of the lost territory lacked large population centers. If you have, or come across, a reliable reference which explains the different figures, then that would be a valuable addition. • Astynax ^talk 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What caused the death of most of the Paraguayan population were not mass exterminations caused by allied armies. The Paraguayan society and economy collapsed entirely. Solano López first removed all men from the farms, leaving the economy essentially at the hand of women, which meant less workforce available. As the allied armies advanced, Solano Lopez ordered those same women to withdraw and destroy everything behind. Women, elderly and children were forced to walk through jungles without aid and clear destination, hundreds of thousands dying in the process. --Lecen (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

An article on the War of Paraguay that (for example) doesn't mention the largest battle in South American history -- the Battle of Tuyutí -- is not very complete. Do you want some help? Ttocserp 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkprescott (talk • contribs)

Misleading move proposal

Anyone who knows a little bit about the Paraguayan War knows that in English-speaking literature the conflict is known both as "Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance", although the former is still the preferable one, specially among historians whose primary focus is in the war itself. Having said that, I am truly worried about the way that WCM_email has behaved so far. It is absolutely legitimate to discuss what name should this article have, what is illegitimate is to pervert data and sources in order to prove one's claim, as WCM has been doing.

Move proposals, as anyone knows, is mostly based on consensus (not on votes) and what name literature in English (and not in any other language) prefers (that is, it doesn't matter how this war is known in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina or Uruguay). The problems with WCM's actions are, in my view:

1) WCM persists on claiming that "Paraguayan War" is a "fringe term in the English language".[2]. As I remarked on my very first message here, not only "Paraguayan War" is used in English, it's actually the most used term, something that even the sole historian whose book focused primary on the war that used "War of the Triple Alliance" acknowledged that: "...the start of the War of the Triple Alliance, or the Paraguayan War, as it is more popularly termed".[3] Another editor[4] and I called WCM's attention on the absurdity of claiming that "Paraguayan War" is a fringe term, but he conveniently ignored us and kept it on his move proposal.

2) Misleading use of NGRAM data. One user (Mike Cline) pointed out that "Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance" have both been used as names for the war, although the former is slightly used more often.[5] See NGRAM data here. WCM opted to present a highly misleading NGRAM data of his, where he conveniently added a "The" (with higher case) to "Paraguayan War", which obviously led to far less results than "War of the Triple Alliance". Me, Eldizzino,[6] and Red Slash[7] complained about this dirty trick of his, but WCM ignored us all. In fact, I attempted to remove his misleading graphic (asking him to re-add it with correct data)[8] and he reverted what I did, without bothering to correct his misleading data.[9]

It's painfully obvious that WCM's incorrect and misleading data is unfairly influencing other editors in supporting him, as can be seen here.

3) Selective use of sources to prove his view. On my very first comment I showed all scholarly books with primary focus on the conflict that were published in English. Only one uses "War of the Triple Alliance", and even this one admits that "Paraguayan War" is the more popular term (see "1)" above). WCM, on the other hand, made a selective use of sources.[10] The first book on the list, "To the bitter end", is the one I mentioned that acknowledges "Paraguayan War" as the most used term (which WCM conveniently doesn't mention). The second "book" us actually an unpublished thesis.[11] The same with the third "book".[12] The fourth "book" on the list is a 50-page long work by a non-scholar, where most pages are filled with pictures. All the other books on WCM's list do not have a primary focus on the Paraguayan War. Why does he presents such a misleading list?

4) Attempts at harassing opposing editors. I expressed my concern over WCM's misleading comments and data, and he retaliated by opening a thread against me at ANI.[13] This is not an appropriate behavior.

Thus, I want to make it clear that WCM is presenting deeply flawed motives for the move request, clearly based on misleading data and reasoning. It's a highly inappropriate behavior of his. --Lecen (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, argue your position on the merits of your proposal not by attacking anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

1. No its not the predominant term in the English Language, it is if you cherry pick your sources, I've provided a whole load of google links above to allow readers to look and check for themselves. I trust that the community can inform itself and come to an informed decision.
2. The Ngram is not misleading. The Ngram presented by Mike Cline presents a misleading picture as the terms he used include false positives such as "Paraguayan War of Independence", "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" or even the simple "Paraguayan War Office" & " Paraguayan War Steamer". I formulated a Ngram to eliminate those. And I have been frank, open and honest in presenting the data and how I formulated it. Again I present the information and trust that the community to inform itself and come to an informed decision.
3. My use of sources is not selective, I have openly explained how they're found. You claimed the term wasn't used, I presented a whole load of sources to show they were. This is simply presenting evidence to show an argument is incorrect, quite normal for a process based on consensus building.
4. Your record on previous move requests speaks for itself, as does the several occasions now you've chosen to attack the editor not the argument. Requesting admin oversight with a neutral comment and informing you of it is not harassment. This is entirely appropriate.

My sole motive is ending the rather silly situation where people find this article via the redirect, as it is being kept at a name that is not predominant in the English language. The rather silly reference to flawed motives is not helping your case, in fact attacking editors is a sure sign that you know your own argument is weak. You are welcome, as usual, to have the last word, I will let my argument stand on its merits. WCM_email 07:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"No its not the predominant term in the English Language..." Then explain why Christopher Leuchars says that Paraguayan War is the most popular term. "I formulated a Ngram to eliminate those..." Does your NGRAM resulsts avoid things such as "War of the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente", or "War of the Triple Alliance against France"? "You claimed the term wasn't used...". Where did I ever say that "War of the Triple Alliance" isn't used? Did you notice that you actually didn't answer to nothing I commented on? --Lecen (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You merely illustrate how an improperly formulated Ngram can produce misleading results, yet I note you tout an improperly formed Ngram as evidence of the predominance of the name you prefer. However, to address the question the Ngram I presented would avoid those. There is no conflict known as the "War of the Triple Alliance against France", the phrase war of the Triple Alliance against France is eliminated by capitalisation as a proper noun. Similarly, whilst there is no conflict known the "War of the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente", the phrase war of the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente" is eliminated by capitalisation. And so on.

I note what your source says, however, after looking at that claim in the available literature I have found that the phrase "War of the Triple Alliance" to be more common in both the Spanish and English lexicon. Whilst I appreciate it is known differently in Portuguese, with respect that is still a minority usage. You need to differentiate between fact and what is the opinion of a single author. WCM_email 17:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly going in circles. Two comments to Lecen:

• It seems obvious that everyone here is acting in good faith based on the sources they've read. There's obviously a split in the terms predominantly used in the historiography, that's all, such that it's possible for one person to mostly see "Triple Alliance" and the other "Paraguayan War." So... no need to mention "motives" or the like.
• You cite Leuchars; for the record, as a reminder, his book is entitled "To the Bitter End: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance." (I haven't read the book so I can't assess the context of the sentence you cite, though. 113 bucks off Amazon? Sheesh...) SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As far I see Lecen's argumentation is largely flawed. I wish he could focus on what matters so that we can see a real counterpoint to WCM's proposal (and then take a position).

In point 1 Lecen put forward a comment of WCM that might very well be inacurate but this case should be treated separately from previous comments (yes this is not the place to refer to old disputes.). Books that focus in conflict do necesarily define what the most appropriate term is. "Popular" usage among other academic works might also need to be considered.

In point 2 Ngram is revealed as flawed, yet WCM used that diagram to illustrate. WCM proposal relies primarily on other evidence. A flawed diagram do not make the argument invalid.

Regarding point 3, the answer is the same as for point 1: works dealing specifically with the subject do not have absolute primacy. Other serious works (e.g. general history books about Argentina, Paraguay, Brazl etc.) have also to be weighted in.

In point 4 the claim that WCM "Attempts at harassing opposing editors." may be true or not but it does not invalidate the arguments WCM has put forward for a name change.

Dentren | ^Talk 20:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dentren, the basic source for historians and grad students on anything related to the history of Latin America is the massive 11-volume series "Cambridge History of Latin America". What is the name used for the conflict? Paraguayan War. (See Volume III) What about the basic bibliography on the war? See volume XI:

• "On the Paraguayan War, Pelham Horton Box , The Origins of the Paraguayan War (Urbana III., 1929) is still worth reading, but should be supplemented by Efraím Cardozo, Vísperas de la guerra del Paraguay (Buenos Aires, 1962) and El Império del Brasil y el Río de la Plata (Buenos Aires, 1962). The same author's Hace cien años, 8 vols. (Asuncíon, 1967-72). For a history of the war in English, see Charles Kolinski, Independence or Death: Story of the Paraguayan War (Gainesville, Fla., 1965). Ramón J. Cárcano , Guerra del Paraguay. 3 vols. (Buenos Aires, , 1938-40), still has value as a work of reference." (See here)

Pay attention for the names of the books published in Argentina: "Vísperas de la guerra del Paraguay" (Eve of the Paraguayan War) and "Guerra del Paraguay" (Paraguayan War). According to WCM, "Paraguayan War" is an unheard term in Spanish-America, and it's only used (not even in English-speaking literature!!) in Brazil. As you can see, he's wrong. --Lecen (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The rather obvious question from this latest from Lecen is to seriously question his WP:COMPETENCE in basic reading comprehension. I have never claimed that "Paraguayan War" is an unheard term in Spanish-America, I have never claimed that "Paraguayan War" is an unheard term in English. I actually make the point it is used but the predominant terms is the one I suggested. Lecen's assertion that I have said otherwise is simply a fabrication on his part. You know what, I'm quite happy to simply state my case and present the evidence and let people make their own mind up. It seems that he cannot do the same and he has to construct ridiculous strawman arguments and attack the opposing view; this must lead to questions as to the strength of his argument. WCM_email 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the sources in the arguments of Lecen and WCM I have came to momentary conclusion that..

• I: both Paraguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance are valid well established names in the relevant literature. None appear to have a clear lead in usage.
• II: both Paraguayan War and War of the Triple Alliance might produce wrong searches and confusion if part of name or the context is not given. Any of this wrongs can easily be fixed with "distinguish templates".

Therefore unless a meticulous weighting is presented on the usage of the terms there are no grounds for a title change. Dentren | ^Talk 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Images

There are more images than space in this page. Some needs to be deleted by MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Bertdrunk (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. Not very satisfying, I know, but there are clearly legitimate arguments on both sides and no agreement among the discussion participants. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Paraguayan War → [[:]]
• Paraguayan War casualties → [[:]]
• List of battles of the Paraguayan War → [[:]]

– Google Books: [14] 196,000 results for War of the Triple Alliance, [15] 35,000 results for Paraguayan War.

As has been pointed out previously, in the English language, this conflict is predominantly known as the War of the Triple Alliance. As one commentator in the last time said, "Jeez is titles so important?", well yes actually, since an analysis I did of traffic a couple of years ago showed this article is usually hit from the redirect 3 times more often than directly. In my experience, the only place it is predominantly known as the Paraguayan War is in Brazillian textbooks.

This should be a simple straightforward and uncontroversial technical move and it is illogical that it remains under what is a fringe term in the English language. WP:COMMON NAME is clear as to what the choice should be.

Previously it was suggested this could be confused with other mentions of a Triple Alliance, hence I have added a moniker to denote South American history. The suggestion that Paraguayan War is less ambiguous is somewhat of a red herring, since there have been a number of conflicts involving Paraguay. WCM_email 22:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Addendum Please not I am happy to remove the moniker (South America) as several people have suggested. For the record my preference is without, I only added this as it was claimed during the last discussion there were other conflicts known as the War of the Triple Alliance (I am aware of none). WCM_email 22:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Per comments in collapsed section below, I am suggesting the removal of the moniker (South America) as superfluous. WCM_email 20:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Support move. A logical and reasonable argument is presented. WP:COMMON NAME is a particularly compelling reason given the redirect issues and traffic flow analysis presented. It would seem an uncontroversial move. Irondome (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support For reasons stated above. Rex Imperator (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. All scholarly books in English published so far with primary focus on the conflict have opted for "Paraguayan War". C. J. Kolinski's Independence or Death Story of the Paraguayan War (1965), Pelham Horton Box's Origins of the Paraguayan War (1967), Leslie Bethell's The Paraguayan War: History and Historiography (1996), Thomas L. Whigham's The Paraguayan War, Volume 1: Causes and Early Conduct (2002), Hendrik Kraay's I Die With My Country: Perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864-1870 (2005), Terry Hooker's The Paraguayan War: Armies of the Nineteenth Century (2008) and Roger Kohn's Weep, Grey Bird, Weep: The Paraguayan War 1864-1870 (2008). The only scholarly book that uses "War of the Triple Alliance" is Christopher Leuchars' To the Bitter End: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance (2002) and it says on page 33: "...the start of the War of the Triple Alliance, or the Paraguayan War, as it is more popularly termed..."[16] This is the third time the editor who opened the move request has requested the change of the article's title. It's time to let it go and accept it. Google hits cannot be used as standard for an encyclopedia for obvious reasons. --Lecen (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have in fact never proposed a move. I have commented in support of previous move requests, often in bemusement at the viscious personal attacks engendered by what should be an uncontroversial move request. I would be grateful if you could focus on the proposal and avoid reference to individuals. WCM_email 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NATURALDAB would prefer the current one; at any rate I am neutral on the choice -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: the inclusion of parenthesis (South America) is not desirable and makes a disastrous title. Have so far not taken a stance on the naming but if parenthesis are included they are a big point against. Dentren | ^Talk 12:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. For all the reasons the same move proposal was previously rejected, see the the previous request. • Astynax ^talk 17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'll also note that the characterization of the term "Paraguayan War" as "fringe" (per the move proposal) is invalid. This was covered during the previous, failed move request[17] and the current request is a rehash of the same arguments. • Astynax ^talk 18:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I continue to oppose the amended move proposal, as it does not differ from the previously failed move request. The same reasoning applies. The conflict was referred to as the "Paraguayan War" in English sources at the time, and has continued to be used in English ever since (as has Guerra del Paraguay in Spanish scholarship). It is the most significant conflict to have occurred on Paraguayan soil (the only significant until the 1930s—"Paraguayan War of Independence" is a red herring, as no battles were fought after independence was declared), was initiated by Paraguay, was fought almost entirely within Paraguay, and remains the most traumatic event in Paraguayan history (it is not anything like as significant in the histories of the members of the alliance). Certainly both terms are used, but I agree that "Paraguayan War" is at least, or more, common in English (not necessarily British) scholarly works I have consulted over the last several years. Moreover, there is currently a redirect from "War of the Triple Alliance" to the current title, and a prominent mention in the first sentence of the alternate term, so readers more familiar with that term still are getting to the correct article. As has been mentioned, the article has a history of major problems that should be addressed rather than resurrecting this move request. • Astynax ^talk 17:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I will not support or oppose this request as I closed the previous similar move request in February 2012 However, an NGRAM shows the current title and proposed title in a deadheat for Commonname. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• ReplyThere are a couple of problems with NGRAM as you formulated it, Paraguayan War generates a number of false positives eg [18] Paraguayan War of Independence, [19] Bolivian-Paraguayan War. Also "War of the Triple Alliance" is much more exact and only refers to a single conflict. Finally, if you just tweak the search terms to eliminate those false positives, [20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25] the War of the Triple Alliance is far more common. Finally, its been asserted that Paraguayan War is apparently less ambiguous, these results show quite the opposite and how easy it becomes to confused a number of different conflicts. WCM_email 23:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support, or even straight-up move to War of the Triple Alliance. I have literally never read of this referred to solely as the "Paraguayan War" and I have read Paraguay-specific literature: it is always the War of the Triple Alliance. I have long thought the original use of this title was a bizarre mistake. SnowFire (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Again, please see the previous move proposal.[26] The term "Paraguayan War" is hardly "literally never" used or a "bizarre mistake"—utterly invalid premises. Both terms are indeed used, sometimes by the same author in the same work, and although you appear to prefer a term that fits with a usage you recall, the hyperbole doesn't help that case. • Astynax ^talk 18:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Please note the "I" in my comment. In all literature I have read, it is referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance. Nothing invalid about that. I don't question that there are clearly other sources that apparently use "Paraguayan War" but they aren't ones I've come across. I don't "prefer" either title in an WP:ILIKEIT sense, but am merely reporting my impression of which term is used predominantly in the literature, which is all that matters. SnowFire (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. For me it seems that this has become an issue of "I don't like this name, but prefer the other one" instead of a discussion over what mainstream historiography seems to prefer. The arguments employed are truly thin. "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilian POV? According to why source? If that is the case, then why books in English use the term? Another person said that although he read many books about the conflict, he never saw the term "Paraguayan War". How could it be possible if Box's "Origins of the Paraguayan War" is still the basic source to understand the beginnings of the conflict, including the territorial and political disputes that led to it? What about "Paraguayan War, v.1" by Thomas Whigham, regarded the greatest English-speaking expert on the conflict? As I said, the arguments are thin. Indeed "War of the Triple Alliance" is also used to name the war, but "Paraguayan War" is still the prevailing name, even if some here don't like it for whatever reasons. Books that deal solely with the conflict have "Paraguayan War" on their titles, and even one that uses "War of the Triple Alliance" (as mentioned by someone here) clearly states that "Paraguayan War" is the most popular one. --72.25.43.211 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — 72.25.43.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just for the record, no one except this IP editor has mentioned "Brazilian POV" and I suggest you look below as regards your second comments. Also if you refer to the previous discussion I repeatedly rejected any claims that this was a "Brazilian POV". The arguments presented here are solely about what mainstream histriography seems to prefer. As the commentator above notes, most people arrive at this article via the redirect and many like me are bemused why it seems stuck under a minority name. WCM_email 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural note. War of the Triple Alliance redirects here, so I don't see any need for the (South America) disambiguation. SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I would happily accept that suggestion. WCM_email 23:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have no side in the Paraguayan x Triple Alliance thing, but have to vote against just because this name is terrible. Guidaw (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• Incredibly strong OPPOSE as proposed. Absolutely not. But strong support War of the Triple Alliance. Red Slash 22:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• After reviewing ngram evidence, I have to oppose even War of the Triple Alliance. It seems that Paraguayan War is at least as common, and far more concise. Red Slash 03:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• OK I just wish to understand your logic, phrases like the "Paraguayan War of Independence", "Bolivian-Paraguayan War", "Paraguayan War Office" & " Paraguayan War Steamer" give you a false positive in Ngram. Using "The Paraguayan War" eliminates those as Ngram are case sensitive. And whilst acknowledging false positives gives misleading results, this is the Ngram that you say convinced you to change your mind. WCM_email 21:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose.

• 1) Proposer misleadingly presents a Google Books counting as a reason to change. If one looks at the Google Books links then the first pages show that "Paraguayan War" is used in titles of books whereas "War of the Triple Alliance" is found more often inside books - sometimes the books have a clear focus on South America or Paraguay - to use "War of the Triple Alliance" in that context is different from using it as standalone term.
  • There are books that contain "War of the Triple Alliance" in the title, but there are also these: "I Die with My Country: Perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864-1870" , "Ten Months in Brazil: With Notes on the Paraguayan War", "Revelations on the Paraguayan War: [...]", "The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct", "The origins of the Paraguayan War", "The Paraná; With Incidents of the Paraguayan War [...]", "The Paraguayan War (1864-1870)"
  • see also the claim above by User:Lecen: All scholarly books in English published so far with primary focus on the conflict have opted for "Paraguayan War" - and the books that they list. Eldizzino (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
• 2) War of the Triple Alliance can be read as a generic title and then is ambiguous, see disambiguation at Triple Alliance. It is not even clear whether the results in 1) included other wars of triple alliances.
• 3) Proposer presents a NGRAM using the definite article "The" for the form that they is opposing and excluding "The" for the form they is suggesting. An NGRAM without the "The" for both results in a almost equal counts for the time after 1983 [27]

Eldizzino (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose both the older and newer proposal per WP:CONCISE. Khestwol (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see what WP:CONCISE has to do with this. "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." A person very familiar with the subject area might recognize either title, someone unfamiliar won't recognize either title, but someone moderately familiar with the topic is much more likely to only recognize "War of the Triple Alliance" according to WCW's ngrams and other's reading of the scholarship. SnowFire (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: "This should be a simple straightforward and uncontroversial technical move and it is illogical that it remains under what is a fringe term in the English language". This is what bothered me the most in the proposer's argument. I'd never dare to claim that "War of the Triple Alliance" is a fringe term. It is widely used, but "Paraguayan War" is still the preferable one, especially among historians with focus in the conflict. Worse of all is the attempt by the proposer to consciously mislead others by saying that, if the name presently in use is a fringe term, than it should be immediately changed without discussion, thus preventing other Wikipedians of having a word on this. What would have costed him a decent and honest discussion about the name of the war? This is not the first time he engages in this matter, and still, he persists on claiming that "Paraguayan War" is a fringe term in English. I can't believe it's merely ignorance that motivates him. --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, with the caveat that we don't need (South America) in the title. Everything I've ever seen in English in print, whether textbooks or ordinary histories or things that only tangentially discuss it, refer to the war as the "War of the Triple Alliance". At the same time, everything I've seen in English in print, whether textbooks...discuss it, are referring to this war when they use the term "War of the Triple Alliance"; nobody in my experience uses the term to refer to another war or refers to this war as the "Paraguayan War". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs)
• Support move to War of the Triple Alliance. It's clear from the references below and the Ngram viewer that the proposed title is the most common name for the conflict. Calidum T|C 02:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment no, I think we cannot move to "War of the Triple Alliance" (removing the disambiguator for conciseness) either. Because Triple Alliance is an ambiguous phrase. The current CONCISE adjectival "Paraguayan" has a much higher WP:RECOGNIZABILITY than "Triple Alliance". The current title can be recognizable and more informative even for someone with low familiarity with the subject. Khestwol (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry but that argument is fallacious. Paraguayan War is ambiguous and as a phrase confuses the Ngram algrithm with false positives such as the "Paraguayan War of Independence", "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" or even the simple "Paraguayan War Office" & " Paraguayan War Steamer". "War of the Triple Alliance" has been repeatedly claimed to be easily confused, I have repeatedly asked for someone to demonstrate another conflict that is known as the "War of the Triple Alliance" and none have been forthcoming. As an argument this is a complete red herring, nothing more. For 6-7 years this article was formerly known as the War of the Triple Alliance, not once did anyone suggest it was confusing and it was not raised as an argument in the original move request that resulted in the article being moved to this name.
• It is worth noting:

1. Robert Levine, The History of Brazil: the War of the Triple Alliance (1865-1870), known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War Page 64).
2. Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White, Globalization: "Dramatized by certain emblematic events, such as what is known in Brazil as the 'Paraguayan War'" (Page 240).
3. Sing C. Chew and Robert Allen Denemark (editors), The Underdevelopment of Development: the Paraguayan manufacturing economy, which was devastated by a bloody war known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War (Page 160).

• In Brazil, the war is known as the Paraguayan War in the Portuguese language and most of those arguing this is the common name are speaking from a Brazillian perspective. It does not reflect how this is known in the English language. WCM_email 08:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Abstain. Debating the label this article should bear is akin to getting upset about the deck chair arrangements on the Titanic. I.e. there are more pressing problems -- to put it mildly. Ttocserp 09:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkprescott (talk • contribs)
• I'm also opposed to the unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. No opinion on the broader question. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support It's ridiculous that we name this the way it's known in Brazil (seriously?). This conflict is known throughout the Spanish-speaking world as Guerra de la Triple Alianza. I do however object to the DAB in the title. But yes, move it over. The problem I see here is that no one has bothered to peruse the voluminous Spanish bibliography on the subject. The "Paraguayan War" is not something found there at all. It doesn't matter what the conflict is known as in Brazil... I mean, seriously. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural."[28] It doesn't matter what bibliography in Spanish, Japanese, Russian or German say. --Lecen (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support the revised proposal (with the unnecessary DAB removed). It looks like this will fail as "no consensus", but I think the arguments in favor of the change (re: WP:COMMONNAME) are stronger. --IJBall (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It looks like the current title is also at least as common in English as the proposed title, and a further advantage with the current title is that it's also more WP:CONCISE. The Ngram was proved to be misleading and false. Some !voters who supported had been misled by it. It searched for "The Paraguayan War" which is not where the current title is located (and even it capitalized the "The"). Removing the word "The", here is a better Ngram (still not perfect, because both results have false positives, but it seems the best available Ngram we can use). Khestwol (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly both titles are in use in English language reliable sources. Judging by the new Ngram evidence it seems that the current title is somewhat more common in the sources. Looking just at 21th-century sources in Google Books and my university library also supports that conclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

References

It is asserted above, once again, that the predominant term in the English language is not as described and the current title is used.

Christopher Leuchars (30 December 2002). To the Bitter End: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance: Paraguay and the War of the Triple Alliance. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-313-07685-5.

Loren Scott Patterson (1974). The war of the Triple Alliance: Paraguayan offensive phase, a military history. Georgetown University.

José Alfredo Fornos Peñalba (1979). The Fourth Ally: Great Britain and the War of the Triple Alliance. University of California, Los Angeles.

Gabriele Esposito (20 March 2015). Armies of the War of the Triple Alliance 1864–70: Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay & Argentina. Osprey Publishing. pp. 43–. ISBN 978-1-4728-0725-0.

Miguel Angel Centeno (23 January 2003). Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America. Penn State Press. pp. 198–. ISBN 0-271-02306-6.

Leslie Jermyn (1 October 1999). Paraguay. Marshall Cavendish. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-0-7614-0979-3.

Harris Gaylord Warren (15 June 1985). Rebirth of the Paraguayan Republic: The First Colorado Era, 1878-1904. University of Pittsburgh Pre. ISBN 978-0-8229-7637-0.

Alison Behnke (1 August 2009). Paraguay in Pictures. Twenty-First Century Books. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-1-57505-962-4.

Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 16–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7.

Gabriela Nouzeilles; Graciela Montaldo (25 December 2002). The Argentina Reader: History, Culture, Politics. Duke University Press. pp. 119–. ISBN 0-8223-2914-X.

Plainly that assertion is factually incorrect. WCM_email 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• That ngram is fatally flawed; I can't imagine why the poster of it thought it was fair to include "The" (capitalized, no less!) in one but not in the other. Low. Red Slash 03:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• No it isn't, "The Paraguayan War", "War of the Triple Alliance" are two names for a conflict, capitalisation avoids the false positive as I note above. It does illustrate the flaw in the logic of those using Ngrams to claim one is predominant, when it clearly isn't. WCM_email 07:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ow, I see. You did that to avoid "false positive" results. Does "War of the Triple Alliance" avoid results such as "War of the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente", "War of the Triple Alliance against the Triple Entente", "War of the Triple Alliance against France and Russia", "War of the Triple Alliance against France", etc...? No, it doesn't. --Lecen (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Except yes it does, your examples are misleading. In each case you've capitalised the phrase, none of those phrases are in fact capitalised in the books you're linking to as google books is not case sensitive. Capitalisation as a proper noun in a Ngram should eliminate those false positives resulting from phrases such as war of the Triple Alliance... etc. A+ for effort, ungraded for results. WCM_email 17:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• While ngrams are case-sensitive, Google Books is not. This is a far fairer ngram. Thanks, by the way; before seeing this ngram for myself I supported the move. Now I'm convinced to argue against it. It's a victory for evidence and references. [29] Red Slash 03:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

Alternative Proposal {{requested move/dated|multiple=yes |current1=Paraguayan War|new1=War of the Triple Alliance|current2=Paraguayan War casualties|new2=War of the Triple Alliance casualties|current3=List of battles of the Paraguayan War|new3=List of battles of the War of the Triple Alliance|}} Paraguayan War → War of the Triple Alliance Paraguayan War casualties → War of the Triple Alliance casualties List of battles of the Paraguayan War → List of battles of the War of the Triple Alliance Would actually be my personal preference and as several people have suggested it I thought to propose it as an alternative. Paraguayan War is ambiguous and as a phrase confuses the Ngram algrithm with false positives such as the "Paraguayan War of Independence", "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" or even the simple "Paraguayan War Office" & " Paraguayan War Steamer". "War of the Triple Alliance" has been repeatedly claimed to be easily confused, I have repeatedly asked for someone to demonstrate another conflict that is known as the "War of the Triple Alliance" and none have been forthcoming. As an argument this is a complete red herring, nothing more. For 6-7 years this article was formerly known as the War of the Triple Alliance, not once did anyone suggest it was confusing and it was not raised as an argument in the original move request that resulted in the article being moved to this name. It is worth noting: Robert Levine, The History of Brazil: the War of the Triple Alliance (1865-1870), known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War Page 64). Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White, Globalization: "Dramatized by certain emblematic events, such as what is known in Brazil as the 'Paraguayan War'" (Page 240). Sing C. Chew and Robert Allen Denemark (editors), The Underdevelopment of Development: the Paraguayan manufacturing economy, which was devastated by a bloody war known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War (Page 160). In Brazil, the war is known as the Paraguayan War in the Portuguese language and most of those arguing this is the common name are speaking from a Brazillian perspective. It does not reflect how this is known in the English language. Google Books: [30] 196,000 results for War of the Triple Alliance, [31] 35,000 results for Paraguayan War. Ngram: [32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37] shows that if you look for references to the conflict, as opposed to ambiguous phrase, War of the Triple Alliance is more common. As has been pointed out previously, in the English language, this conflict is predominantly known as the War of the Triple Alliance. WCMemail 20:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose per WP:CONCISE, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and reasons already given above. Khestwol (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Comment. No need for a separate poll IMHO, just modify your original proposal with a comment and explanation. It's not uncommon to change the proposal slightly in the middle. SnowFire (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Oppose. Are you serious? There is a move request just above this one. This is getting ridiculous. Oppose for all the reasons I have in the thread above. I won't repeat myself here. Also, the data presented by the proposer is misleading. He searched for "The Paraguayan War" and "War of the Triple Alliance". It's obvious that by adding a "the" before "Paraguayan War" it will give far less results than "War of the Triple Alliance". Two other editors beyond me have pointed that and the proposer still refuses to remove his misleading results. --Lecen (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Support based on the arguments presented by WCM, it appears to be more common in English literature.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Sources

I would like to propose, in hopes of improving this article in a consensual way, that a list of reliable sources for the Paraguayan War/War of the Triple Alliance be built up.Ttocserp 18:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkprescott (talk • contribs)

This article really does need an expert. I don't want to criticise it unfairly seeing that many people have obviously put in hard work, but it's all over the place. There is no awareness of the terrain, the logistic difficulties, or the significance of the different battles. One example of that will have to do: The first battle of Tuyutí isn't mentioned --even though it was the most important battle of the entire war, destroying the flower of López's army -- while the unimportant second battle of Tuyutí is. Ttocserp 07:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkprescott (talk • contribs)

Paraguayan archives

Once and awhile I see people over the Internet claim that the Paraguayan national archives were taken away by Brazil and were never returned. It's partly true and partly wrong. Indeed the archives were taken, not by Brazil, but by the Viscount of Rio Branco. His son, the Baron of Rio Branco, inherited them. After his death, they were given to the Brazilian National Library. In 1980, in a solemn ceremony, Brazilian president Figueiredo (the last of the military-presidents) returned the archives to Strossner, the last Paraguayan dictator. In other words, the archives have been in Paraguay since 1980 and they have been extensively used by researchers since then (duh!). This story I got from my professor and friend, Dr Thomas Whigham, author of a trilogy about the war and regarded as the greatest English-speaking specialist in the Paraguayan War. I'd suggest simply removing the sentence about the archives. --Lecen (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lecen, I'm impressed that you know Thomas Lyle Wigham (I'd like to meet him myself one day.) Pity parts two and three of his trilogy are, as yet, and as far as I know, available in Spanish on Kindle only -- not very :widely used in Paraguay. Shame, because when I have been to Paraguay the people are great but their ignorance of the politics of the War is invincible.

In fact, I already have several references in peer-reviewed journals defining the position of the Archivos Nacionales which, as you say, are alive and well in Paraguay,

On a different note, might you be interested in cooperating to improve this Article? It could certainly do with it. Ttocserp 20:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dr Whigham is a great person, and very friendly. And very knowledgeable. Every couple of years he presides a conference on Paraguayan history in Montevideo (why in Uruguay, it's a different matter). He has been a mentor in the last few years and has helped me a lot with my own research (I'm a grad student at the University of Florida, he teaches at the University of Georgia). He told me that he found a publisher and his trilogy will finally see the day of the light (as an English edition).

I've been planning to work on this article for years, but I always thought that other articles should be improved first before I started working here. I promised myself as soon as I finish my thesis (by the beginning of the next year), I'll work on this this article. You could help me and review Juan Manuel de Rosas. I nominated as FAC and it needs reviewers. --Lecen (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I think the Rosas article pretty good anyway.

Do you happen to know when the next conference in Montevideo is scheduled? Ttocserp 21:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. All I know is that it's scheduled to occur in the middle of 2016, around May-July. I'll let you know when I get more information. --Lecen (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Burton: Why I removed quotation.

The citation from Burton. Letters From the Battle-Fields of Paraguay, page x: (1) Had nothing to do with the subject of the Article; (2) Was cited as a "primary source" (which is impermissible under the WP); and (3) Was in any case, selective, tendentious and misleading.

On the personal sympathies of Burton – he was not even a diplomat at Rio de Janeiro, but only the British consul at the relatively minor town of Santos – it is not clear what they have to do with the subject of the Article. But in any event: even a cursory reading of his book shows that his real sympathies were with Paraguay. The passage cited in the previous version of the article was:

My sympathies are with the Brazil, as far at least, as her 'mission' is literally, to unlock the great Southern Mississippi (sic), to keep open and develop the magnificent water system of the Paraguay-Parana-Plate, and to sweep away from the shores of its main arteries, the 'guardias and piquetes', the batteries and ridiculous little stockades which served to keep its waters comparatively desert, and to convert a highway belonging to the world into a mere monopoly of Paraguay.

But the very next paragraphs have been omitted. Why? Because they are inconvenient to the thesis, of course. So let us quote them:

On the other hand, I cannot but admire the wonderful energy and the indomitable will of Marshal President Lopez and his small but sinewy power, which will never be forgotten nor want admirers as long as history shall endure. In many actions one-third of the number engaged was placed hors de combat, and often of a battalion numbering 400 men only 100 returned.

The Paraguayans have indeed fought for their altars and their fires, fought for the green graves of their sires, their God, their native land, for the "vindication of their outraged honour, the guarantee of their threatened existence, and the stability of their wounded rights."

Burton proceeds to argue that the alleged atrocities of Lopez have been exaggerated or, at least, not yet proved. (In this he turns out to have been gullible).

The passages are there on the Internet Archive for anyone to read. [38] Ttocserp 15:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing paragraph?

The last paragraph under "Uruguayan Prelude" starts with "News of the war's end ..." Something seems to be missing before it. Wilson44691 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

England Influence and Christie Question

on the "Modern Interpretations" section of the article, the first paragraph explains that Brazil and England had ceased diplomacy during the war period, without citation. I don't have the time to translate the article, but in the portuguese wikipedia there is an article explaining the Christie Question , when a grounded ship was ransacked by locals and England demanded compensation, which the Brazilian Empire declined to. --Hagnat (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Article name change

Shouldn't this article be named the War of the Triple Alliance, as most historical texts name this conflict as such, not the Paraguayan War? Labtek00 (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Books published about the war calls it "Paraguayan War" mostly. This has been discussed before. --Lecen (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Paraguayan War as a Featured Article

After years, I decided to work on this article and turn it into a Featured Article. This means that I'll completely rewrite it. If someone opposes it, please say it now. --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That will be great. Appah Rao (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paraguayan War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CPA-5 (talk · contribs) 10:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This GAN isn't ready for becoming a GA-class due to lack of citations in the whole article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CPA-5, Hello, and thanks for starting the review. As i am an relatively new user, i think you mean that there are not many inline citations? If it is that you mean, i hope this is not an problem; it has enough bibliography, something will surely stick. As i have not contributed to the arrticle, i will be happy to do so. If you tell me, i will try to bring someone that has hugely contributed it here, for help. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 10:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, in this case, let me introduce Wikipedia for you. Wikipedia has many classes in its articles, the first one is the stub-class. Stub-class are articles which are too small to be considered a real article and could be easily be merged if it hasn't a lot of information about the subject. After that, we have the start-class, this class means it is in progress to become a real article. At the talk page, you can see B-class criteria. Those criteria are our goals to make this article a B-class, the criteria are:

1. Referencing and citation

2. Coverage and accuracy

3. Structure

4. Grammar

5. Supporting materials (images, maps, videos, audios or infoboxes)

If a start-class reached four of the five then it'd become a C-class which is almost a B-class but it only needs one the criteria to be done. B-class is our first and earliest good classes everything below has probably a bad article or is in progress. After B-class (which another editor should review) you have GA-class. Which means a good article, Then we're coming to A-class which is a specific class within the MILHIST (Military history) project. Other projects haven't this class and would go in straight to FA-class (featured articles). This would take ages before they reach FA-class to just one article, because, an FAC (featured article candidate) needs a lot of supports and needs to the best article what Wikipedia should have. Welcome to Wikipedia. Anyway back to the main subject this article lacks b1 so the "Referencing and citation" part if you could to try to add some citations to the article and the article has academic sources then this article could become a GA-class in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

CPA-5, Thanks for your welcoming and reply. I will try to add that things of bibliography to citations, I will request help if I find trouble. Eni vak (speak) 21:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay but I await a little assistance by one editor who had contributed to the article. Eni vak (speak) 17:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any news of the editor Enivak? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: their account was globally locked as they made several sock accounts and engaged in crosswiki vandalism. Their account might be unlocked in 6 months. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 06:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to close as a fail. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Not good at all.

The Brazilian historiography about the war actually has no evidence of ad nauseam we can read even in foreign encyclopedic text:

No evidence, no data, about "huge losses" from the Paraguayan side (as the Empire commited any unfair, any - using today's language - war crime, any genocide!).

Just writting this for the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.214.115.79 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes and reliable resources please

The name must change because Paraguay have two wars, you can't named this was as Paraguayan War because this war was agaisnt Francisco Solano López, check the source, http://www.saij.gob.ar/127-nacional-tratado-triple-alianza-lnt0002527-1865-05-24/123456789-0abc-defg-g72-52000tcanyel, ARTICULO 7. - No siendo la guerra contra el pueblo del Paraguay, sino contra su gobierno los aliados podrán admitir en una Legión paraguaya todos los ciudadanos de esa nacionalidad que quieran concurrir a derrocar dicho gobierno, y les prestarán todos los elementos que necesitaren, en la forma y bajo las condiciones que se acordarán. ARTICLE 7. - Not being the war against the people of Paraguay, but against their government, the allies may admit to a Paraguayan Legion all citizens of that nationality who want to concur to overthrow said government, and they will lend them all the elements they need, the form and under the conditions to be agreed. Also Bolivia was the first country that recognized Paraguayan Independence in 1843. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherpy (talk • contribs) 02:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

1. The title of the article is a matter for consensus. It was debated very thoroughly a long time ago. There are very good arguments on both sides. It is not permitted to change the title unilaterally.

2. You may be right about Bolivia, but this requires a reliable source. All you have to do is produce it, and the controversy is resolved.Ttocserp 09:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Teacherpy, would it be too difficult to ask you to stop acting in an uncivil matter? If the article is stable and someone opposed your change, do not engage in an edit war. --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sharpd153.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article provides false information/information is not reviewed properly

This article needs to be reviewed properly, a lot of information is obviously innacurate. For example, the casualties shown for Uruguay are not specified as 'soldier' or 'civilian', and yet the number if bigger than the number of Uruguay's troops sent to the war at the time. 135.0.17.180 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

First Battle of Iasuií

This section contains no context and its relevance and importance is not apparent. Why it deserves a section to itself is a mystery. It is not mentioned in the List of battles of the Paraguayan War. I intend to remove it in a few days.Ttocserp 23:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Great Soviet/Russian Encyclopedia

Why is this considered worthy of mention in the article? Does it have a significant historiographical contribution? I see none. It might be relevant in the article Historiography of the Paraguayan War; I will move it there. Zaslav (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Article name change

Ignoring the fact that "The Paraguayan War" is an inaccurate, partisan and biased label; most historical texts name this conflict as the "War of the Triple Alliance", not The Paraguayan War. Guarandu (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before very thoroughly.Ttocserp 07:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't so much discussed, more a case of a concerted effort by a number of Brazilian editors to impose a name used in Brazil but which is in minority use elsewhere. The predominant name in the English language is the War of the Triple Alliance. WCM_email 12:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Change title to War of the Triple Alliance

It's the far more common name in English, ESPECIALLY if you only count articles written before this page changed. Paraguayan War is the dominant name in Portuguese, not English. And as other editors have pointed out there's evidence the previous name change was somewhat brigaded 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:ACAC:6FC7:C632:32DE (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)