Talk:Paraguayan War

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)