Talk:Platine War

Argentine and Uruguayan strength in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of valid refferences

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

Merger proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title Change to "Guerra Grande"

Platine War → Guerra Grande – Listing this as a move request, since that is what it is. I myself have no opinion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, English-only results for "Platine War": 50 books (nothing more, nothing less).

Here is the Spanish WP article on the "Guerra Grande" ([1]), encompassing both the so-called "Platine War" (which only about 50 English books mention) and the "Uruguayan Civil War".

Trying to claim both conflicts, which are related to the bone, to be different events is completely absurd. The "Platine War" is a Brazilian POV not sufficiently supported by English historiography to be its own article. The following are fantastic examples of English historigraphy regarding the "Guerra Grande":

• Robert Burr (Page 1): " 'La Guerra Grande,' which dragged on from 1836 to 1852, involved the Argentine Confederation, Uruguay, antigovernment factions in each of those nations, and Brazil, and brought intervention by France and Great Britain."
• Reference Guide to Latin American History (Pages 127-128): It provides a timeline of the events, and not a single mention is made of a "Platine War".
• Phillip Taylor (Page 16): "During the Guerra Grande (1839-1852), the 'Great War' in which Uruguay, Brazil, and Argentina, and at points Great Britain, France, and even the United States were involved."

Based on the evidence, it is obvious that this article needs to be renamed.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Guerra Grande is the name of the Uruguayan Civil War that began roughly in 1832 and ended on 19 October 1851 when Oribe surrended and it already has its own article: Guerra Grande. The Platine War, on the other hand, is the name of the international war between the Argentine Confederation and the Empire of Brazil. It began on 18 August 1851 when the Argentine government declared war on Brazil and ended on 20 February 1852, when Brazilian troops entered Buenos Aires, the Argentine capital. According to your view, then, we should merge World War II with Second Sino-Japanese War and with Chinese Civil War. Pure nonsense. Your role, as well as of your Argentine friend, is no more than to downplay Brazilian role to the point of insignificance, and treat an international conflict as a mere local civil war. "Thousands of books talk about the battle of caseros without considering the duke of caxias, pedro II or even Brazil worth a footnote", these were MBelgrano (Cambalachero)'s words. And I am sick and tired of you and your friend anti-Brazilian bias calling it everything a "Brazilian POV". --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My "role" here is to advocate in favor of the English-language historiography. 50 books in English about a "Platine War" demonstrate that this is nothing more than a small view of Brazilian historiography (i.e., Brazilian POV).

It is also not surprising that most (if not all) of the sources used for this POV article are "in Portuguese" ([2]). Historians in the English language don't call this a "Platine War". This isn't the Portuguese Wikipedia. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Although it was not my original proposal, this other proposal serves both things: it rids us of a fringe name used in a tiny handful of sources, and acknowledges the declaration of war thing. Rosas did not declare war on Brazil because he was mean, but because Brazil made an alliance with Uruguay, who was already at war with Argentina. This article itself says it: "The text of the treaty declared that the objective was to protect Uruguayan independence, pacify its territory, and expel Oribe's forces." If Brazil joins the colorados against the blancos, who were at war, then it is not the start of a war, it's Brazil joining an ongoing war. Cambalachero (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the GA reviewers didn't cath on this "Platine War" problem. It's also worthy of note that the exceptional claim that a result of the war was "Brazilian hegemony in South America", is referenced solely by Portuguese-speaking authors. As an exceptional claim, it should require sources that are more neutral (surely, if this is true, it must be in English, French, or even Spanish). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)