Talk:Platine War

Title Change to "Guerra Grande"

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

Oppose. First and most important reason: there is already an article about the Guerra Grande. It's not allowed on Wikipedia to exist two articles with the same name and about the exact same subject. Second reason to my oppose: 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. It's the same thing as the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War. Both are related conflicts, but are not the same. --Lecen (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A few notes:

1. "Guerra Grande" is a redirect, not an article.
2. The sources I presented above demonstrate that, in English historiography, the "Guerra Grande" encompasses the Uruguayan Civil War and the Brazilian PoV "Platine War". My proposal seeks to keep the Uruguayan Civil War separate (and maybe merge it in the future), and to make this "Platine War" article (with only 50 Google Book hits in English) into the much more thorough (and accepted by English historiography) "Guerra Grande" article.
3. Your comparisson to the East Asian conflicts is erroneous. The Japanese didn't get involved in the Chinese Civil War; in fact, both Chinese factions temporarily stopped their fighting to fight against the Japanese. On the other hand, Brazil and Argentina (along with the foreign powers) clearly took sides in the Uruguayan Civil War, thereby turning the civil conflict of Uruguay into the "Guerra Grande" (Spanish for "Big War"). What Brazilians call the "Platine War" is what in English (and Spanish) historiography is considered part of the "Guerra Grande".

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: To repeat my reason from the proposal to merge the article into Battle of Caseros, the term Guerra Grande is intrinsically PoV. Which war is labeled a Great War depends entirely upon which nation is the focus of the work and/or which nation's or generation's PoV is adopted. That is one reason why World War I is used in both scholarship and on Wikipedia, rather than Great War. Guerra Grande is also needlessly ambiguous (it is an alternative name used as often in English references for the Uruguayan Civil War, Cuba's 1868 Revolt and the Paraguayan War). "Platine War" describes the geographical sphere of the conflict, is not "Brazilian PoV" and occurs in solid English references, as has been previously discussed. • Astynax ^talk 08:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

50 books is by no means "solid" English referencing, relative to the thousand and something found for "Guerra Grande" (even when specified as English-only results and regionalized). Let's also remember the Rio Grande and Big River articles. Regards. "Guerra Grande" is a perfectly valid title, supported by English historiography.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The suggested target is merely the Spanish for the Great War. This is ambiguous since The Great War normally refers to Wold War I. There is no objection to it being used as a section heading, but with WP as a worldwide encylcopaedia, we need article titles to be unambiguous to the whole world. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Great War" in Spanish is known as the "Gran Guerra" (not "Guerra Grande", as suggested by Peter). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an easy one, but Guerra Grande seems to refer to the civil war in many instances rather than the wider conflict. On balance, I'd stick with the current title, with Guerra Grande reflected in the lead and as a redirect. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to the reasons presented above. Felipe Menegaz 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw Move Request: As nominator, I request the withdrawal (closing) of this move request. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless your name is "D O N D E groovily Talk to me" you aren't allowed to request the closure of this move request. It was he the one who made the move request. --Lecen (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, thanks. ([3]): Here Donde makes it clear that he started the move request on my behalf (which means, he was acting for me). Therefore, I have the right to ask for this discussion to be closed as the nominator. Donde further defends this situation in his talk page ([4]), where Lecen's plea is correctly set as an absurd rant. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no real need to change it. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Guerra Grande

Based on comments in the discussion above, I launched a discussion at Talk:Guerra Grande as to whether it should be a disambig page or continue to redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hegemony in South America

I could understand Brazil gaining hegemony in the Southern Cone, but to claim that it acquired hegemony in South America? I see one note and two sources that justify this claim (all in Portuguese). What exactly do the sources state? Is this only seen in Portuguese sources, or do non-Portuguese authors agree with them? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worthy to point out that the note does not justify the exceptional claim being made (although it is a good elaboration of Brazil's increased prestige). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See Empire of Brazil#Foreign relations, third paragraph. "'Brazil is, next to ourselves, the great power on the American continent', affirmed James Watson Webb, the U.S. minister to Brazil, in 1867. The Empire's rise was noticed as early as 1844 by John C. Calhoun, the U.S. Secretary of State: 'Next to the United States, Brazil is the most wealthy, the greatest and the most firmly established of all the American powers.' By the early 1870s, the international reputation of the Empire of Brazil had improved considerably, and it remained well-regarded internationally until its end in 1889. Christopher Columbus Andrews, an American diplomat in the Brazilian capital in the 1880s, later recalled Brazil as an 'important Empire' in his memoirs." As early as 1844 Brazil was already regarded as the second great power in the Americas, not only South America, that is, eight years before the end of the Platine War. This article was the very first one I wrote on Wikipedia, and that's why it rely so much on Portuguese sources. --Lecen (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not doubt, or challenge, that the Empire of Brazil held much prestige in the world. I also do not doubt that the Platine War placed the Empire on a better position relative to Argentina (thereby making it a power in the South Atlantic). What is in question here is that the Platine War actually gave Brazil "hegemony in South America". I cannot find this claim on any English source. What do the sources in Portuguese state?

Regarding the primary sources you bring up, it's worth mentioning that Americans (during those times) used Brazil in their slavery discussions. Thus, people like John Calhoun and Zeph Kingsley used Brazil in their proslavery arguments. In other words, it was not so much as them actually trying to praise Brazil, but rather them trying to over-state Brazil's prestige for their own proslavery benefit. That's the danger of using primary sources (figuring out the intentions of the people); and (in any case) they also do not justify the claim that Brazil attained hegemony in South America after the Platine War.

For the first article you wrote, it's actually great. Perhaps you should give thought to making a profit out of your research. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your observation to why the U.S. Secretary of State in 1844 and U.S. diplomatic ministers in 1867 and 1888 regarded Brazil as a major power is not only original research, but also flawed. The slavery in the USA had been abolished in 1865, so it would make no sense that they would be supporting somehow slavery in the U.S. as late as 1888. For Brazil's hegemony: "But the Praieira was subdued, the national government enforced a ban on the slave trade demanded by London, and Brazil's success against dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas in Argentina consolidated its southern borders and gave it the status of hemispheric power." Source: Levine, Robert M. (1999). The History of Brazil. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 978-0-313-30390-6, pp.63-64. Notice that this American historian used "hemispheric", which means the all Americas, not only South America. So, yeah, remove your "dubious" tag from this article. And lastly: no, I don't wish to profit from anything I write here. It's the Free Encyclopedia, not the "cash-in Encyclopedia". --Lecen (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned two specific people, Calhoun and Kingsley, and at no point mentioned in the 1867 or 1888 people in my explanation. So, no, my observation is not flawed (nor is it original research; see Balancing Evils Judiciously by Daniel Stowell).

Again, your source at no point uses the term "hegemony" or "South America". Therefore, your conclusion is original research. The claim being made by Robert Levine is exceptional and, per Wikipedia policy, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Alternatively, you can write it within the text and attribute it to Levine. However, to claim "South American hegemony" or "hemispheric power" in the infobox, you'll need reliable sources that actually state it (for the former) and several more that state it (for the latter).

And why can you not provide the direct quotes from the Portuguese sources? Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that the Empire of Brazl was a regional power. But how is that caused by this conflict, and not simply by Brazil's own internal managment? The whole recreation of the viceroyalty thing is just counterfactual history: Argentina did not control Bolivia, Paraguay or Uruguay before Caseros, neither after it. So, nothing had actually changed in that sense. In fact, Lecen said it himself some lines above: "As early as 1844 Brazil was already regarded as the second great power in the Americas, not only South America, that is, eight years before the end of the Platine War". So... if the Empire of Brazil was already a regional power a decade before Caseros, then this is not a consequence of Caseros. The "result" line can be simply "Allied victory", or a "See aftermath" link to the section. Otherwise, we should mention as well the 1853 Constitution of Argentina and the State of Buenos Aires. Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I switched the text for "Brazilian hegemony in the Platine region". That is what most of the sources state (per the Aftermath -> Brazil, section). I also made note that Brazilian historian JF Maya claimed that it was hegemony in South America. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

POV

Hello, I'm a distressed reader... the level of POV and uncited material is ridiculous. I would love for a serious impartial editor to go over this article and fix a few of the more blatant discrepancies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.145.225 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this conflict (nor claim to know much about it), but I would like to see some sources I can actually take a look at. I can't find many sources regarding a Brazilian of Uruguay with 16,200 men. Were these 16,200 men mostly Uruguayan troops with some Brazilian support like in the Battle of Caseros (Argentine rebels w/Brazilian support) or did Brazil formally invade Uruguay with a large invasion force? From some of the sources I'm looking at it seems that the Brazilians crossed the border to pressure the Blancos into surrendering to the Colorados but there were no actual battles fought or blood shed between the invasion force and the Uruguayan Blancos.