Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 16 March 2013

Uruguayan War

Uruguayan War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Uruguayan War/archive2

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC) • Astynax

Everyone has at least heard of the Paraguayan War (a.k.a. War of the Triple Alliance) (1864-70). But few have heard of the war that led to it. The Uruguayan War was the second of the international wars fought by the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Dom Pedro II. It was short and successful, but it brought terrible consequences to all countries involved directly and indirectly.

Writing this article was not an easy task. The Uruguayan War is usualy mentioned on sources in English either in an introductory chapter or the first chapter in works about the Paraguayan War. They talk about the Uruguayan civil war that caused it, a little bit about the siege of Salto and Paysandú, only to focus on the Paraguayan invasion. For the first time the entire war has been brought to English. Everything. All military operations. I'd like to thank Hoodinski for creating the much-needed maps for this article. They look wonderful. I hope you all enjoy a little bit of South American military history. Lecen (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Most war info boxes contain the headings Strength and Casualties and losses, would it be difficult to include these here? Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because there are figures on how many Brazilians fought the entire war, the same goes to Blancos and Colorados. How many civilians died is also a mystery, as the "aftermath" section tells. I don't want to guess them since it would mean my POV. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First of all, I don't understand why are Argentina, the Argentine parties Unitarian and Federal and Bartolomé Mitre listed in the infobox. The only mentions to Argentine topics are in the context sections, neither Argentina nor any Argentine military leader or army (unitarian or federal) is ever mentioned in war action from "Early engagements" to "Fall of Montevideo"... except when it is mentioned that Mitre (listed as a commander?) refused to join the conflict and had Argentina stay neutral. Being allied in previous conflicts does not count, nor providing mere political or economic support: the infobox is for actual belligerents.

Second, why is this conflict treated as a stand-alone war, and not as a campaign of the War of the Triple Alliance? After all, if we skip all the introductory and contextual information, all we got here are a handful of sieges and naval skirmishes, and military actions continue after it (Solano López takes military action in support of the Blancos, and the war heads next to López). In fact, I feel that the article is a bit too big than it actually should: there are lengthy explanations of things that lead nowhere, lengthy explanations that overlap with similar explanations that may be made for the War of the Triple Alliance itself, high use of quotations, trivial information... for example, in "Army of the South in Paysandú", we have 9 lines and 3 quotations just to say that Brazilians were more numerous and better armed. If, as you say, all English literature treats this conflict as a campaign of the War of the Triple Alliance, it must be for a reason... perhaps because that's what it is. Here I searched Google books for "Uruguayan War" plus "Flores", and only got 68 results.

I should point as well that this article uses English and Brazilian sources, but lack any Uruguayan sources. Cambalachero (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, File:Gaucho 1868c.jpg is a lower version of File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, a featured picture made from the same photo (and it is an Argentine gaucho, makes little sense when talking about Uruguayans). Still, it should be better replaced by an image with higher EV in relation with the Blanco-Colorado conflict, rather than just a generic image of a random gaucho. Cambalachero (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I take these criticisms seriously ... I've said similar things in the past at Milhist (although not specifically about Lecen and Astynax's articles), that military history is not just things that go "boom" ... it's history. (And a lot of Milhist guys know that ... quite a few have or will soon have PhDs in history ... but some don't know.) But that's just my personal opinion about military history. My personal opinion about Misplaced Pages is that "it is what it is", and there's not a lot that I can, or should, do to try to make it something completely different. Many of the more than 130,000 military history articles don't do a lot more than tell you who did what when and what the results of the combat were. Lecen and Astynax tend to cover context ... but if they want to write an article that's long on what happened and short (or shorter than you want it to be) on historical context, I'd be hypocritical to oppose their article on the grounds that we don't do that here ... because we do in fact do that here, sometimes. Having said that, I hope the three of you can reach a position that you can all live with. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the 4º entry of the FA criteria: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". The context, political, social and economic causes of a war are valuable information, but at the main article, the one of the main war, the War of the Triple Alliance. We don't repeat that information at all the articles of battles and campaigns of that war, that info should be provided in them in summary style. Cambalachero (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First, let's be clear—this is a legitimate topic for an article. It may be retroactively considered a campaign, but there is clearly enough material here for a stand-alone article, and six other-language Wikipedias agree. Second, there aren't that many quotations. Could you give clear examples rather than alluding to such problems? You give one, but that's not indicative of problems with the whole article ... and, quite frankly, the example you give is terrible. Yes, he could simply state that "the Brazilians were more numerous and better armed", but that doesn't tell us why, which is what this article does. It also shows why the Paraguayans jumped in; in your preferred version, we wouldn't know why "the war ... revealed the Empire's military unpreparedness".

I also don't see why some of the information shouldn't be repeated here. While summary style is good, every article must also be able to stand on its own, which is criteria four: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". If anything, we should have more information here, because the Paraguayan War article (when fully developed) will be larger and necessarily less detailed.

Without clear, justifiable examples, there's little we can do. The two criticisms here that are merited are the concerns with the infobox, which typically only show true belligerents, and the lack of Uruguayan sources, which Lecen should show why none are used. Ed  08:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The "scene-setting" in the article is fractionally long for my tastes, but I'd agree with Dank that it is typically an important part of understanding subsequent military events, and any article should be self-contained in terms of giving essential context. I'd recommend tweaking the section headings to make it clearer when the war starts within the article, but again, that's a relatively minor change. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the support I got from Dank, The ed17 and Hchc2009. I would be far more happier with reviews... :) Anyone who knows me also knows that Cambalachero and I have been clashing for some time because I found out that he has been using spurious sources (books written by Argentine Fascists that have no historiographic legitimacy)(see Juan Manuel de Rosas' talk page). He has never contributed to Uruguayan War nor has ever edited its talk page (see the article's history log). Regardless, I will share my thoughts about his "arguments":

1) "First of all, I don't understand why are Argentina, the Argentine parties Unitarian and Federal and Bartolomé Mitre listed in the infobox. The only mentions to Argentine topics are in the context sections, neither Argentina nor any Argentine military leader or army (unitarian or federal) is ever mentioned in war action from 'Early engagements' to 'Fall of Montevideo'..." This passage reveals that he hasn't bothered to read the article and that has no knowledge of the topic.

On "Liberating Crusade of 1863" is said: "Flores and his Colorado units served Buenos Aires with fierce determination. They played a decisive part in the Battle of Pavón on 17 September 1861, in which the Confederation was Aires. In fulfillment of his commitment, Mitre arranged for the Colorado militia, Argentine volunteer units and supplies to be carried aboard Argentine vessels to Uruguay during May and June 1863."

On "Paraguayan–Blanco close ties" is said: "The Blancos were also aided by several Argentine Federalists, who joined their cause. As in Uruguay, Argentina had long been a battleground of opposing parties. Bartolomé Mitre's victory at Pavón in 1861 had also signaled the triumph of his Unitarian Party over the Federal Party led by Justo José de Urquiza. Mitre denied any involvement in the Flores rebellion, even though his complicity was widely understood."

2) "Second, why is this conflict treated as a stand-alone war, and not as a campaign of the War of the Triple Alliance?" Another serious error. The Paraguayan War (a.k.a. War of the Triple Alliance) began when Paraguay seized the Brazilian steamer "Marquês de Olinda" and then invaded Brazilian provinces (and later one Argentine province). It was a war between Paraguay and the Triple Alliance (Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina), not a war between Brazil and Uruguay. Anyone knows that, even people with the slightest knowledge of South American history.

3) "I should point as well that this article uses English and Brazilian sources, but lack any Uruguayan sources." This is novel to me. Does it mean that to write World War II we would be forced to use books published in every single country that fought in the war? The MoS is clear when it says that "Because this is the English Misplaced Pages, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."

4) "By the way, File:Gaucho 1868c.jpg is a lower version of File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, a featured picture made from the same photo (and it is an Argentine gaucho, makes little sense when talking about Uruguayans). Still, it should be better replaced by an image with higher EV in relation with the Blanco-Colorado conflict, rather than just a generic image of a random gaucho." Yet another serious error. "Gaucho" was a culture that extended over several countries in the Platine region and it's not limited by national boundaries. The Gauchos were semi-nomadic riders, descended from the mixture of whites, blacks and Indians. An Argentine gaucho talked, dressed and lived just like an Uruguayan and Brazilian gauchos. In fact, a Brazilian gaucho would identify himself more with an Argentine gaucho than with a Brazilian from Porto Alegre (capital of Rio Grande do Sul), for example.

Thomas L. Whigham said: "No one had ever adequately defined the frontier between Rio Grande do Sul and Uruguay. The inhabitants of this zone identified themselves either as Brazilians or Uruguayans; their nationalism was expedient depending on which nation was useful as a shield in a time of need. Borderlanders lived their lives in much the same way whether on the Brazilian side of the frontier or the Uruguayan side. They worked in ranching, often with thousands of head of cattle to manage; spoke Spanish and Portuguese (and sometimes Guaraní) with equal fluency; enjoyed sipping mate, sharing tales, and playing the same card games as their gaucho cousins in Argentina. And they wore the same regional costume: loose baggy trousers (bombachas), calf-skin boots with silver spuns, a colourful shirt with silk handkerchief about the throat, a wide but unadorned sombrero strapped under the chin, a belt studded with silver coins and a razor-sharp knife (facón), and a dark blue or black poncho of delicate wool flung jauntly over the shoulder to reveal the scarlert lining." (page 144 of Whigham, Thomas L. The Paraguayan War: Causes and Early Conduct, 2002).

With this description, I could use the photo to portray a Brazilian gaucho, an Argentine gaucho or an Uruguayan gaucho. Unlike Cambalachero, I know what I'm talking about. And because of that and also because of the reasons I gave above, I will ignore him. --Lecen (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Brazilian-Colorado troops", "Brazilian–Colorado forces": The hyphen-dash (or is it hyphen–dash?) wars are lame, but I know it can't be both. I think it might be best to do without either here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry. I fixed that. I really don't have a formal opinion about the "hyphen-dash wars". Any of the is fine to me. --Lecen (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: After reading Lecen's statement above, I am not satisfied with his explanation for the inclusion of Argentina as a participant in the conflict (even with the note of "veiled support"). That seems to me more of a WP:OR, rather than a historical consensus. I also think that the Gaucho image could probably be better (such as this one from Wikimedia commons: ), rather than having a standing Gaucho. Lastly, the lack of Uruguayan sources can surely be corrected in the future (assuming a Uruguayan editor, or someone knowledgeable in that perspective, edits the article); however, that should not be a problem at present. Other than that, the article is great. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)