Talk:Cisplatine War

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 cuestioned 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 cuestioning 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

Argentina–Brazil War → Cisplatine War — First and most important of all, this international conflict was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". Someone created that. Second, there was no Argentina back then, but the United Provinces. 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. 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.: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], 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 [18], 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 [19] 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 ben written as "had occurred in the conflict between Brazil and Buenos Aires". C'mon, man. Is this a joke? Why are you doing this? I will ignore you from now on, MBelgrano.

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)