User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


As you keep raising the same topic at several pages, let's discuss it here. Let me ask you a question: have you ever heard the term "Predecessor state"? Because the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata and the Argentine Confederation are considered predecessor states of modern Argentina by all reputable sources. All works on the history of Argentina considers them that way, and all the nationals of those countries (such as San Martín, Belgrano, Rosas, Rivadavia, Urquiza, etc.) are universally acknowledged as "Argentines". I challenge you to find a work about the history of Argentina as a general topic that begins in 1861, or that considers those countries unrelated to Argentina.

And note that mere territorial changes, such as the gain or loss of territories, do not always turn a country into another one. It makes complete sense that the predecessor state was bigger or smaller than the modern state, nobody will hold the succesion in doubt just because of that. Cambalachero (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your points at Argentine Civil Wars:

No, I am right about the early secession of Buenos Aires in 1826, there was, as you say, also a later secession. From the Wikipedia article the State of Buenos Aires:
"Regionalism had long marked the relationship among the numerous provinces of what today is Argentina, and the wars of independence did not result in national unity. Following a series of disorders and a short-lived Constitutional Republic led by Buenos Aires centralist Bernardino Rivadavia in 1826 and 1827, the Province of Buenos Aires would function as a semi-independent state amid an internecine civil war. An understanding was entered into by Buenos Aires Governor Juan Manuel de Rosas and other Federalist leaders out of need and a shared enmity toward the still vigorous Unitarian Party. The latter's 1830 establishment of the Unitarian League from nine western and northern provinces would force Buenos Aires, Corrientes and Entre Ríos Provinces into the Federal Pact of 1831, and enabled the overthrow of the Unitarian League."
It was this early secession that began the Civil Wars.
My point about Uruguay, Paraguay etc. is that they are states that now occupy the land that was once the United Provinces. You yourself are agreeing with this. Why did you remove this description of the United Provinces?
How could the Civil War be the United Provinces turning into Argentina when the United Provinces, by your own admission became Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay etc. It was not the United Provinces but the Argentine Confederation that became Argentina. The United Provinces broke up. Had it not broken up then Argentina would be called the United Provinces. Even the Name of Argentina was not used until the break up began. (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. You have read wikipedia articles, with their short summaries, and draw your own conclussions. What about reading a real book instead? A higher level of Isolationism is one thing, an open secession is a completely different thing, and no such a thing took place in 1826.

As I pointed elsewhere, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay did not became independent countries because of the Civil War, but for other reasons. Then, to mention them in the lead would only serve to confusion. Your idea that the United Provinces "broke up" is completely the result of your own confusion and misunderstanding. You are drawing your own conclussions, not pointing the conclussions made by reputed historians who worked on this topic. That is original research, which is not allowed here.

By the way, I'm aware that you began all this while discussing the sovereignthy claims of Malvinas, and wondering if the civil wars could affect them. All while attributing actions to the State of Buenos Aires "between 1829 and 1862", which further points that you have little to no idea of the topics you are talking about. The State of Buenos Aires existed from 1852 to 1861 Cambalachero (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can list my concerns about NPOV taking the articles one at a time:

Argentine Civil Wars

The story starts with a statement that:

"The main antagonists were, on a geographical level, Buenos Aires Province and the other provinces of modern Argentina, and on a political level, between the Federal Party and the Unitarian Party."

So the ordinary reader immediately has a picture of modern Argentina extending to Tierra Del Fuego. Is that true or did the wars occur when Argentina was a different place? How would you word the article to show that the wars described in the article started in the United Provinces of South America which is a very different geographical entity from modern Argentina? Please suggest a way of correcting this problem.

There is a second problem. To the outsider it appears as if some of the Argentine provinces became very nearly independent before 1831. They had their own foreign policies and even launched their own wars. It is common for large countries to describe the early history of their parts as internecine struggles between entities that have always been a single unified whole. (China and Tibet, the USSR and the Ukraine etc). This is a political point of view. A balanced article would describe the extent to which these countries were independent. In particular the State of Buenos Aires had two periods, one before 1832 and the other mid-century when it was acting as an independent country. This is the nature of civil wars, they often split large countries into parts that join together again. If the provinces had not become nations why did they need a Federal Pact to reunite? I would request that the article explores the extent to which the various smaller states that fought in the civil wars became countries, with their own foreign policies, economic control and wars and the act of reunification between the states in the Federal Pact.

Argentine War of Independence

The article begins with:

"The Argentine War of Independence was fought from 1810 to 1818 by Argentine patriotic forces under Manuel Belgrano, Juan José Castelli and José de San Martín against royalist forces loyal to the Spanish crown. On July 9, 1816, an assembly met in San Miguel de Tucumán, declared full independence with provisions for a national constitution."

So the ordinary reader has a picture of the geographical Argentina of today being created in 1818. But the United Provinces of South America was created and this has a very different location from modern Argentina. It could be argued that a nation is entirely political, not geographical, but I would say this is a non-neutral point of view. A nation is also the place where a people live and this needs to be located clearly in your story.

Later in the article on the Argentine War of Independence it mentions the United Provinces once in the text but does not explain what these are or what territory they occupied. Reading the article I would be convinced that Argentina, a state occupying the geographical extent of the modern country, was born when the United Provinces were created. When I turn to the Federal Pact article it appears that the Argentine Confederation was created in 1832 and the Name of Argentina was only used from 1826 onwards.

Surely the article on Argentine Independence needs to be amended to tell me about the geographical extent of the various states and their relationship to each other. What would you suggest as new text?

British invasions of the Río de la Plata

The article has a section called "British pretensions". I think this may be a problem with the author using "pretension" as "advancing a claim" when it is a sophisticated word that has a clear shading towards rather slimy "wrongful claim", it is a "weasel word". In this section it describes episodes of British planning extracted from a century of history without any indication that the 18th century was full of conflict between Britain and Spain. The section needs, at the minimum, a change of name and a qualifying sentence to provide balance. My suggestion is:

Anglo-Spanish Rivalry

The immediate cause of the Invasions of the River Plate was that Spain was allied to France from 1803 to 1808 during the global conflict known as the Napoleonic Wars in which Napoleon Bonaparte attempted to conquer Europe and gain global ascendancy. The hostility between the British and the Spanish in the 18th century was the result of the six Anglo-Spanish Wars from 1702 to 1783, most of which lasted for several years.

Alternatively I would recommend cutting the section altogether because it contributes little to an understanding of why the British invaded then withdrew and never came back despite having a huge navy and army after defeating Napoleon. 11:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should accept that you have no idea about these topics, and either try to learn more or give it up. Your description of the state of Buenos Aires is completely made up, as your weird theory of the provinces acting as independent countries. You asked "If the provinces had not become nations why did they need a Federal Pact to reunite?" A history teacher may reply: "Are you asking?" Your question is caused because your limited information (both about the history of Argentina and the nature of national organizations in general) led you to a faulty conclussion, and struggle to understand why this faulty conclussion is proved contradictory by further facts. You also propose to remove a referenced section from the British invasion because you don't understand "why the British invaded then withdrew and never came back despite having a huge navy and army after defeating Napoleon". Again, you prove you have no idea: the British did not return because Spain became an ally against Napoleon. And why not later? Because the true goal of Britain was not territorial conquest but free trade, which was not allowed by Spain, but was accepted by the new independent countries (and thus military action was not needed). It is not me who says it, but George Canning: "The battle has been fierce, but it is won. The nail is clenched; South America is free and, unless we sadly mismanage our affairs, it is British".
You have the preconceived idea that the United Provinces or the Confederation were different and unrelated countries, that the provinces were independent countries, and keep complaining because you find everywhere that things were not that way. Haven't you considered that you may be wrong, that you had not understood well? Have in mind that non-neutral tags are not used for when you personally do not like or agree with something. You may wish that countries were different ones unless their frontiers were exactly the same at two points of history, but nobody holds that conception but you. Besides, tagging several articles because of your personal misunderstanding can be considered tag-bombing. Cambalachero (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Please can we tackle each problem in turn rather than just declaring that I am an idiot and addressing points that I have not raised or focusing on one point and ignoring the others. It will be far too problematical to talk about these problems all at the same time here. The discussion must take place back on the talk pages for the articles.

The discussions have been transferred to the talk pages for:

Argentine Civil Wars

British invasions of the Río de la Plata

Argentine War of Independence

United Provinces of the Río de la Plata

History of Argentina

(Where they are supposed to take place according to the rules) (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)