Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive2

Marshal's topic ban

Probably the best way to deal with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine_History/Proposed_decision#MarshalN20 topic banned is to move some comments now in the FAC to this talk page ... feel free to revert, anyone, if you'd prefer to run this by the FAC delegates. - Dank (push to talk) 11:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You haven't addressed the concerns I raised on the last FAC for this same article. For instance, the invented Spanish term "Guerra del Uruguay" is still present in the article. GB results show that the term has no usage in the Spanish language (see [1]). Please address this and the other problems and then I will change my view. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshal, can you see yourself supporting if some specific changes are made, or is your main objection that Argentine sources (or Spanish-language sources generally) take an essentially different view of events, a view not present in this article? - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Dank. I listed three direct points on the prior Uruguayan War FAC which were problematic beyond point of view concerns (invented war names, article title ambiguity, and unreliability of "veiled support" claim). None of the nominators took the time to address the points and have continued to show disdain towards them by presenting this second FAC without addressing the points. As I wrote above, I will change my view if these three points are addressed. Regarding POV, the article has a clear Brazilian perspective on matters (reading it shows an inherent Brazilian tone). However, Lecen & Astynax do a good job at attempting to include Uruguayan views and neutral commentary from secondary sources. Since there are no Uruguayan editors who can contribute to the subject, WP:AGF works here in favor of the current POV of the article. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've had a request not to pursue this, and I don't mind sitting back and seeing how this goes. If it goes well, that's less work for everyone, including me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: After again reviewing the concerns you raised in the previous FAC, I am baffled by your oppose, as well as the contention that you received no response to your points. Point 1 (inclusion of Argentina as a participant): that Argentina provided materials, men and logistical support is documented. Argentine involvement was decisive and objecting to including it on the basis thatt Mitre refused to formally declare war seems to be a stretch–Argentina was both involved and played a crucial role in the conflict, as have undeclared belligerents in other conflicts. Point 2 (use of the gaucho photograph): this was already addressed in the previous FAC, and you seemed to indicate that this was a matter of personal preference. Point 3 (use of Uruguayan references): this was also answered during the previous FAC. At that time, you had indicated that lack of Uruguayan references was not a problem. Your comment about "Brazilian tone" requires further explanation. • Astynax ^talk 10:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're not reading my April 20, 2013, points. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regarding the Argentina "veiled support" (now "tacit support"), could you please show me other Featured Articles that have this sort of inclusion? It also seems WP:OR to reach this conclusion of "tacit support" (which none of the cited authors make). I am not opposed to having the information in the article, but including Argentina in the infobox seems like a POV-push. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: The "tacit involvement" (not "tacit support") is already documented in the article's text with accompanying citations. • Astynax ^talk 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the sources use the term "tacit support," and again no justification exists for having Argentina (or its political parties) in the infobox. It would be like adding Chile and Peru to the Falklands War article infobox due to their respective "support" for the UK and Argentina. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deeper analyis:

Unitarian Party: Mentioned twice in the text (once in the lead, once in the body). No reason to include them in the infobox.
Federalist Party: The term "support" is used in the lead, but the article's body has no further explanation. Again, no reason to include them in the infobox.
Argentina: I've explained myself on this one here and on the last FAC for this article.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marshal's reply to The_Ed17:

Regarding Peru's involvement in the Falklands War (Please see: [2]); a small quote: "with no hesitations Peru made available to our country Mirage aircraft, missiles and pilots to combat next to our Argentine pilots and boys." It sounds awfully similar to "supplies, Argentine volunteers and river transport for troops." Would you like one for Chile as well?

None of my points are minor or nitpicky, but I am glad that you also see that they are issues. The worst issue of all is the invented Spanish name "Guerra del Uruguay." I don't know what Google Books version you are using, but mine only brings up two hits for "Guerra del Uruguay" (see [3]), none related to this war.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]