Talk:Paraguayan War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject South America / Argentina / Paraguay / Uruguay (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Paraguay (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uruguay (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Brazil / History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Requested move 25 May 2015[edit]

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)

– Google Books: [1] 196,000 results for War of the Triple Alliance, [2] 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. WCMemail 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). WCMemail 22:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Per comments in collapsed section below, I am suggesting the removal of the moniker (South America) as superfluous. WCMemail 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..."[3] 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. WCMemail 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NATURALDAB would prefer the current one; at any rate I am neutral on the choice -- (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[4] 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 [5] Paraguayan War of Independence, [6] 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, [7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] 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. WCMemail 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.[13] 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. -- (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (talkcontribs) 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. WCMemail 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I would happily accept that suggestion. WCMemail 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)
  • 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. WCMemail 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 [14]
Eldizzino (talk) 16:48, 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 (talkcontribs)
  • 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. WCMemail 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 (talkcontribs)
  • 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 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."[15] 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)


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. WCMemail 11:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ngram of The Paraguayan War, War of the Triple Alliance.jpg
  • 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. WCMemail 07:05, 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. WCMemail 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. [16] Red Slash 03:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
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.


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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)

Paraguayan archives[edit]

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)