Talk:Cisplatine War - Knowledge (XXG)

2978:). This is was Sir Robert Gordon said to Lord Ponsonby: "The resources of this Empire seem to be immense and believing I that Brown - as great as he is - cannot aniquilate the Brazilian navy, you will simply have the blockade reestablished with even greater vigour". Though fighting with valour, the battles at land proved inconclusive, since the United Provinces did not manage to repel the Brazilian forces, nor had they means to do it. The two major towns in Uruguay (Banda Oriental) were kept under the control of the Empire of Brazil throughout the conflict, Montevideo and Colonia. Contrary to what it is usually played out by the Argentine historiography, the outcome of the conflict in favour of Brazil was not the result of British intervention in favour of Brazil, but the harsh reality on the ground: the Brazilian naval supremacy and the lack of means to expel the Brazilian forces from Uruguay. Britain was interested in keeping free trade and preventing the emergence of a local power. They were as much interested in contaning the United Provinces as they were in containing Brazil. Certainly the United Provinces did not manage to win the conflict, as Uruguay was not incorporated as this is what was intended by them. They did not manage to expel the Brazilian troops from the two major Uruguayan towns and the blockade was imposing severe economic consequences, which could aggravate in the future. The Empire of Brazil did not win it either. The conflict was rather balanced and the buffer state of Uruguay came out as the most adequate intermediate solution. 2993:- 1th- It is hardly find when the Pronvinces fighted without corsary forces. The strongest navy in the emisphere were the Imperial Navy from Brasil, even when Brasil lost navals battles, were fighting with big advantages. Lost Monte Santiago battle hardly changed the Province situation in the sea and river. The most important naval forces from the Provinces were not in the formal navy, but in their corsary forces. 2nd It is a Phyrryc war model in both sides. Brasilian and argentinian military academys teach almost the same models. 3rd- The Result of the war was a Phyrric militar vitory of the United Province. The blockade was importan to reach the peace treaty. no doubt about it. also the high cost of the military resourses and the multifront war of the provinces. I was a matter of choice between conflicts. The internal civil wars and the war against the spaniard empire were claiming troops, weapons, leaders, gold to the United Provinces. Brasil keep in diplomacy only the territory what was taken by military during the war. but as an enciclopedic data, the result of the war is the military winning of the United Provinces. The consecuences, of course, were others. BUT IT IS HOW EVERY SINGLE PHYRRIC VICTORY ENDS. -one more thing, Argentina Nation and the State are diferent things. The members of the United Provinces were all from the same nation, but were no part of the same National Estate at that time, thats why were at internat war one against each other. 3016:

it was already felt. Argentina began to lose basically all of the Naval encounters (due to their smaller ships, etc) and so with the battles at land. Rivera entered Misiones against the orders he had (Este trabajoso acuerdo enhebrado entre Ponsonby y Lavalleja vía Trápani y Fraser estuvo a punto de quebrarse por los planes de Fructuoso Rivera, un oriental que estaba distanciado de Lavalleja y deseaba combatir al Brasil con apoyo de los caudillos de las Provincias Unidas. Entre abril y mayo de 1828 la conquista de las Misiones (que habían estado en manos de las fuerzas imperiales) por parte de Rivera comprometió la suspensión de hostilidades acordada entre las Provincias Unidas y Brasil, mientras se realizaban las tratativas de paz. Dispuesto a apoyar las gestiones de Ponsonby, Lavalleja envió fuerzas al mando de Manuel Oribe para impedir la invasión de Rivera al territorio brasileño (5)

3750:, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery". 3000:

the loss of its smallest armed vessels made little difference to the ultimate balance of power" (Brian Vale, A War Betwixt Englishmen Brazil Against Argentin on the River Plate 1825-1830, Brian Vale, I. B. Tauris, page 137, chapter 14). The Battle of Santiago, on the other hand, was crutial, since the 2 best ships of Argentina were sunk. The other one (the 25 de Mayo) had already been sunk at Lara Quilmes. Brian Vale again summed it up well: " Juncal had done little to push the Empire in the direction of peace. Now at Monte Santiago, two of Argentina's precious brigs-of-war had been destroyed and the cream of its Navy roundly defeated. The Brazilian Navy's overwhelming superiority at sea had been reasserted in a way which neither William Brown's audacity or Ramsay's newly purchased frigates could seriously challenge". See this link too:

2185:

between 1810 and the reunification and full meaning of each organization of provinces is very twisted and I don't have the right sources to make it something clear and legible (I have history books, which do not go into the finer detail of the legal background, it's always battles and causes and consequences of events), but the specific point we are concerned about is clear: the nation waging the war under the command of Rivadavia was named Argentina. Yes, I know: that means we should change the infobox, and even the article itself of the United provinces clarifying its legal status (what it was, what it wasn't, when was it renamed, etc.). I'm aware of this flaw since some time ago, I haven't found yet the sources to fix this, but that's another issue.

1397:, not because I am Brazilian or something like that. I's amazing that no matter how much time passes, you simply don't learn. You're clearly desperate not to see this article be renamed to "Cisplatine War" simply because in your view, is the name used by Brazilians. What is your goal? To keep wiriting and writing so that this talk page becomes impossible to be read by anyone thus shunning away anyone who could be interested in this poll? Is that your objective? You first tried to bring Google results with link that had "War" and "Brazil" in it, even though none of them had anything to to with this conflict. Were you trying to make us all of fools? Now you bring to us other results. Let's take a look at them, shall we? 2572:

Mbelgrano doesn't want "Cisplatine War" simply because in his mind if it's a name also used by Brazilians that means that it's simply wrong. I've wrote several articles and all of them acchieved Featured status (another is about to become a Featured status as we speak) and I've dealt with several editors, and always with pleasant results. Guess where I had troubles? Yep, articles where MBelgrano is active (that is, Platine War and this one now). Neither he does any kind of real contribution to these articles nor does he let anyone work on them, specially, if that person is a Brazilian. Perhaps someone should tell him that Brazil and Argentina aren't enemies for... uh... 150 years? He probably never heard of

2722:, the "result" entry of the infobox should be a very short sentence of two or three words, such as "X victory", or perhaps an equally short consequence, such as "X victory. Independence of X". If the result is something so complex that can't be properly described in such a short way (such as here, where neither of the countries in war achieved what they were fighting for, nor the result is a direct consequence of the outcomes of the battles), then the infobox should link to a section in the article where such complexity is fully described. The "See Aftermath" text is a better option than an 8 lines explanation in the infobox 3713:. In 1825, the Republic of Buenos Aires took advantage of a rebellion in the area to claim the Banda Oriental as part of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. This action amounted to a declaration of war, and Brazil reciprocated six weeks later. Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait, the war went disastrously for Brazil. Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries." 2549:. I don't regard that as unreasonable, as that's what Spanish language histories call it, and I certainly don't regard it as offensive for the Spanish wikipedia articles to follow that tradition. In a similar way, the English language wiki calls it the Falkland conflict. Both have links to accommodate the opposite phrase. If what you're suggesting is that the term Cisplatine War carries a particular racial or derogatory national slur against Uruguayans (as opposed to simply being an English language term they'd disagree with) that would be a different matter, of course. 2949:--In military book you can find this kind of war as "Pyrrhic war". The winner lost as much or more than the looser. United Provinces won the land and sea battles, but the high cost of the victory, and the trade crisis in Buenos Aires, the main port of the provinces, help the Empire wining in the diplomatic area were they get the sing of a peace treaty. In general the Provinces crisis was also because of the multifront wars. In the north against the spaniard crown, internally between the provinces and in the east against the Brazilian Empire. 3808:

those were defeats. There was also the Battle of Ituzaingó, where 6,000 Brazilians and 10,000 soldiers from the United Province and rebel Cisplatinians clashed. Who won? No one. It was a tactical draw. However, it was a strategic defeat for Brazil. After all, the Brazilians failed on expelling enemy forces from their own territory. What about in the sea? By the end of the war the United Provinces' fleet was completed destroyed. Thus, Brazil was victorious at sea. Did it change anything? No, it didn't. Brazil still lost Cisplatina.

256: 1843:. As pointed before, "Argentine-Brazilian War" allows us to avoid giving preference to either the Spanish or the Portuguese name. And there's another advantage from it, among that list: Recognizability. Only Brazilians, Uruguayans and Argentines (and only those with knowledge of history) know what is "Cisplatine". This, of course, rules out the vast majority of English speakers. The meaning of "Argentine-Brazilian War", on the other hand, is much more easy to identify: it's a war between Argentina and Brazil. 42: 4508: 625: 305: 284: 1679:

finding out relevant statistics, rather than just global Google searches or similar. I agree that searching for "War" and "Brazil" will not give an accurate stat. The searches I've done are with quotation marks, thus only picking up the full phrase in each case. But in this case I think the significant majority of the evidence points the same way, in favour of using Cisplatine War here as the most appropriate English name for the conflict.

2905:

Cisplatina becomes the sovereign nation of Uruguay" would confuse the casual reader into thinking that this was an independence war, meaning, a war between Uruguayans who wanted to be a free nation vs. Brazilians who wanted to keep it as part of Brazil, and that Uruguayans would have prevailed in such a conflict. Which is obviously not the case. "See aftermath", on the contrary, is free of any possible bias or misunderstandings.

1403:, where we can not even read the page and see if the book is talking about this 1825-28 conflict. Not only that, the words in it are "war of Brazil", in lower case, not "War of Brazil", as it would be written if that was the title of a conflict. Are you still trying to make us all of fools? Do you believe we would simply see "War" and "Brazil" spelled somewhere and take it for granted? Your behavior is certainly reproachable. 3492: 3555: 3551: 2164:

the state for Argentine-Brazilian). If I had to chose one though, I might support Cisplatine War, just because anybody can find bias in anything and this seems to be pretty minor compared to some discussions, and I'm more concerned about accuracy over the name of the state. We can't just assign a state a name it didn't have at a specific time period. Whichever is used, however, should have a redirect from the other. –

424: 403: 315: 434: 33: 141: 545: 518: 555: 213: 202: 191: 99: 75: 1664:"Cisplatine War". Leaving aside the "Brazilianphobia" that the Argentine MBelgrano has, names such as "Cisplatine War", "Platine War", "Uruguayan War" and "Paraguaiayan War" are not used because some people like Brazil more than Argentina or similar. As you said: it's the name given according to geographical location of the conflict. Regards, -- 3380: 1015:. Cisplatine War is used in English-written books, Brazilian war isn't. That's the main point: this is the English-written Knowledge (XXG) and I'm talking about what English-written sources say. Lastly, and again, no book uses "Argentina-Brazil War". You have two options, MBelgrano: start contributing for real or stop being a nuisance. -- 2148:

the end of hostilities, but it was clearly the "United Provinces" that entered into the war with Brazil. (3) As the war was instrumental in the formation of Uruguay, the term "Argentine-Brazil War" is exclusionary and mildly misleading. I would recommend throwing in a sentence or two about references to the term "Argentine-Brazil War".

180: 169: 3689:(Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 59-73." The book "Balancing Evils Judiciously" focuses on Zeph Kingsley, but throughout the book Stowell explains on events mentioned in the Kingsley writings. One of these is the war between Brazil and what Kingsley calls "the Free Republic of Buenos Ayres" ( 2298:) are all wrong? So, we should change that article's name to fix a mistake... but we can't do the same in here? Really? You're going to tell us now that the United Provinces were widely known then as "Argentina"? And that United Provinces not only wrong, but was not used? Are you going this far, Mbelgrano? -- 1357: 2568:

changing to this name". And should know that during the war, towns were under Brazilian control, while the Argentine-Oriental army roamed through the countryside. Until 1828, there were general deputies and senators in the Brazilian parliament representing Cisplatina. So, there was a Cisplatine province.

1518:

and may be ignored is the same than being against them. By the way, it is you who started accusing of bad faith and conspiracies, I merely pointed your contradictions between what you say here and what you say elsewhere. But if you are willing to it, we can avoid any future personal remarks from now on.

3867:

He is not an expert on the subject, nor is the book he wrote specifically addressing the conflict. You picked up a quote from someone who is not a military historian, nor a specialist on this conflict, nor in the history of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, no matter his profession his opinion is simply

3811:

And the quote? I can't understand why the quote is there. It's out of context and it doens't explain well enough what is talking about. It was clearly placed in there by a Hispanic-American editor who wanted to show off what the United Provinces did. And the unknown editor complaining is correct when

3795:

Unfortunately there aren't many good books in Portuguese about this war. Unless we're talking about old books written in the early 20th century. For what I could've noticed from the Knowledge (XXG) in Spanish, the Argentine books seem to be quite good. Having said that, I wanted to make it clear that

3762:

The Brazilian Armed Forces blockaded Buenos Aires and caused serious economic consequences to them (Buenos Aires was basically the only place for interaction with the outside world, and the United Provinces were heavily dependent on exporting and importing); you can read about these consequences from

3471:

Google Scholar prefers 'Cisplatine War' (58 hits) over 'Argentine-Brazilian War' (20 hits). Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' or 'Argentine-Brazilian War of 1825' (or '1826' or '(1826-1828)' ), which highlights the precision problem with the proposed title already

3091:

for "Cisplatine War". Plus, the new name may be better for readers: any reader can recognize Argentina and Brazil, and understand that this was a war between both (actually, they were the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata and the Empire of Brazil back then, predesesor states of modern Argentina

2973:

Not true. After the battle of Monte Santiago, the United Provinces lost their navy, for all practical purposes, since they could no longer deal with the Brazilian ships at high seas. Only skirmishes by corsaries could be undertaken from that time on. With naval supremacy, the Brazilian Navy imposed a

2805:

Attempting to explain the complexity and multiple perspectves in a few short lines is doomed to failure, and all the attempts done so far are unadvisable. For example, see the current one: "with favorable terms to Brazil regarding to navigation on the Plata River". Was that, navigation of the rivers,

2522:

because they did not want to be the "Cisplatine province". Naming the war like this hurts the Uruguayan feelings. For a closer example, ask any native of the Faklands islands what would they think if we proposed to move "Faklands Islands" or "Faklands War" into names using "Malvinas". Of course, they

1800:

I know John Lynch primarily for his works on the revolutionary period. I'm afraid I don't know how he refers to the 1825 war, as I can't find an on-line work that links him to either the term "Cisplatine war" or "Argentine-Brazilian war". I would be interested to know what term he prefers though. The

1517:

An article about a Brazilian topic does not "belong" to Brazil, and certainly a war does not "belong" to only one of either sides of the conflict. And to say that one is not against "legitimate" points of view is just rethoric: to discredit other perspectives and then say that they are not legitimate

1353: 4447:

Both ones must be detailed. If the article says that it was a stalemate but describes only the Argentine problems, it would be describing a Brazilian victory. That's why the Brazilian problems should be described as well. It should be mentioned as well that Manuel Dorrego proposed that the Orientals

4378:

It does contradict, since it shows clearly that the Brazilian armed forces of that time were still able to counter the United Provinces, no matter how weak or disorganised they may have been, since they managed to impose a blockade of the Plata and since no military solution was feasible on the part

3807:

What about the military side? There were land battles in the very beginning, that is, in 1825. The Brazilian troops were, indeed, repeately defeated. They were, however, defeated because the rebels troops came dressed with their Brazilian uniforms and attacked the unsuspected Brazilians. Regardless,

2932:

It does not appear to me like this was a military victory for Brazil, they didn't win a single land battle (lost the battles of Sarandi and Rincon in Uruguay) and the United Provinces went as far as successfully invading (Battles of Ituzaingo, Ombu, and Bacaycay) Rio Grande do Sud in southern Brazil

2835:

I'll be straightfoward on this one: Brazil kept the control over Cisplatinian towns during the entire war; it managed to completely destroy the United Provinces' navy by the end of the conflict; however, it lost a province. That's not a win situation, not draw situation, that's a lose situation. Did

2571:

Hchc2009, don't bother with "why it is called Malvinas in Spanish language Knowledge (XXG), then?" Being contradictory is a trait of MBelgrano. And don't forget that it's not the name given by Brazilians, or by Argentines or by Uruguayans that matter, but which one is used in English-language books.

1834:

Actually, your own results make it clear that either uses are used in similar ammounts. A mainstream use would be a use with at leat some hundreds of entries of distance from other uses, which is not the case here. A difference of just a few tens does not set apart a mainstream usage from an obscure

1663:

Hchc2009, nevertheless, simply looking at the number os hits given by a search engine isn't enough. As I said before, if you write "War" and "Brazil", you'll get results which have nothing to do with the subject. What is important is: how many books actually use this or that title? And yes, they use

1239:

And please: stop with the google books search results. None of the books that appear ins the search results when typing "War of Brazil" has nothing to do with this war. While "Cisplatine War", that is, the name used for this conflict which occurred between 1825-28 there are countless books which use

4427:

As you can see, it is biased to say that only the Brazilian side had problems. So did the United Provinces. So much so that if Brazil did not expel the fighters from the Banda Oriental, neither did the United Provinces: as I said both Colonia and Montevideo remained under the control of Brazil. And

4281:

Also, it's important to note that the "disaster" part was never in the article. I only took the last two sentences of Stowell's statement, which are a good description of what ultimately ended up happening. What matters here is that Stowell is a professional historian, secondary source, third party

4119:

Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if

3803:

The main question is: who won the war? Who lost it? Was it a draw? Well, I don't believe it was a draw. Brazil had a province and lost it. It lost an entire province. This is a defeat. Was it a military defeat? No, it wasn't. Did the United Provinces won the war? No, it didn't. In fact, it came out

3015:

In short: after Argentina joined the war effort, the Brazilian Navy had a series of battles, with the Argentine fighting with great valour, but in the end, losing their best ships at Lara Quilmes (June 1826) and Monte Santiago (April 1827), they lost their Navy, for all practical purposes. In 1828,

2999:

Brazil won the Naval war. This was very critical. Juncal had no importance, since the Brazilian Navy was much larger than the 3rd division of smaller ships which the Argentine managed to beat. "To a navy which consisted of 69 warships and 22 packets and transports, manned by 10600 officers and men,

2801:

Don't go out of topic. If the result is not something straightfowad as "X wins", if you can't explain it in one or two very short sentences, don't do it in the infobox. Do it at the "Aftermath" section, and explain the complexity in there. That the result is so far the only referenced part does not

2643:

the move to "Cisplatine War". Cisplatine war is the term most used in English therefore it should be the main title of the page. It's a no-brainer. The article is horrible, it has no sources and the neutrality is also questionable. Let's improve the article instead of waisting our time with this

2579:

But who cares, right? Coming from a guy who made me lose my time in Platine War article arguing that Rosas was a kind, generous, democratic and fair elected president instead of a brutal tyrant. And I'm quite happy to see that in that discussion he brought John Lynch as a source, carefuly hiding an

2567:

Ow! Now you (MBelgrano) don't want "Cisplatine War" because it would hurt the... Uruguayans' feelings?! Really?! You know, why don't you stick with one reason for a change? Or why don't you simply say "I don't like Cisplatine War and that's it and I'll do anything I can to prevent this article from

1644:

that the reason for this was that when the first English histories of the conflict were written in the 1830s, the area mostly now occupied by Argentina was then referred to as the United Provinces. The English habit at the time, in any case, was to refer to the conflicts by region, thus Cisplatine.

1345: 1337: 1333: 703:

The congress that met in La Florida in 1825 only reaffirmed for legal and symbolic purposes that the Banda Oriental was part of the Provincias Unidas, but no one except Brazil would have questioned that before the war; being against Rosas wasn't a reason for not being part of the Provincias Unidas,

4848:

It was called Province of Montevideo in the Convention of peace, which is also attributed as Oriental Province, by the same name as Banda Oriental. The Cisplatina Province and the Oriental Province existed at the same time, The Cisplatina Province since the Luso-Brazilian invasion and the Oriental

4171:

MarshalN20 posted this from Stowell: "Contrary to Kingsley's positive portrait". As one can see, Kingsley gave apparently a positive portrait of Brazil during that conflict. One can see Kingsley had a positive portrait. As mentioned Stowell is not an expert on the subject, posting his opinion as a

3007:

On land, Brazil did "win" battles (Las Cañas, Padre Filiberto, etc). The line between "victory" and indecisive result is a blurry one anyway (so much so that Ombu and Vacacaí are considered skirmishes without decisive result; at Ituzaingó, Brazil retreated, it did not capitulate, the Army was kept

2820:

One of the 3 main reasons Brazil was fighing the war was the right to free navigation in the Plata River (which was a central issue to the brazilian economy). The other 2 reasons was to keep soverignty over the Missiones Orientales and to prevent the United Provinces to re-annex the Banda Oriental

2163:

So a quick look at this makes me think that either Cisplatine War or Argentine-Brazilian War would be OK. They both seem to be widely used in English sources, and they both seem to have their share of problems (potential Brazilian bias with the use of the Cisplatine War, confusion over the name of

2147:

the move to "Cisplatine War". Three reasons: (1) The case for the use of the term "Cisplatine War" in English-language historical literature is stronger. (2) The name itself seems logical and more accurate. From what I have read, "Argentina" may or may not have have been an organized state before

1712:

Hchc2009, make your search for "Argentine-Brazilian War" (using the demonym both times, your "Argentine-Brazil war" mixes a demonym and a country as noun). You will find that it gives 293 results, not very far away from the results obtained for "Cisplatine War". And yes, as a given name, and about

1494:

Could stop acting on bad faith? Do not remove my words from its true context. Nowhere I said that I had a Brazilian bias or that I am against other legitimate points of views. In that article I said I was a staunch supporter of democracy, human rights, etc... and strongly opposed dictators. In the

761:

Same as in the Portuguese language wikipedia, Carlos Frederico Lecor was missing as one of the Brazilian leaders in the conflict. He was Commander in Chief of the "Army of the South" both in the begining of the conflict (11.Mar.1826 to 26.Nov.1826) and at the end (22.Jan.1828 till after the end of

4258:

Stop misrepresenting myself. I am not a nationalist. What I pointed out is that Stowell is not an expert on the subject he never wrote a book on it, and there are many other opinions besides his. Whatever he thinks of the conflict is in no way a final judgment on it contrary to what MarshalN20 is

4165:

If the Brazilian army was weak, so was the Argentine army. If the Brazilian army did not have control of events, neither did the United Provinces army. They did not expel Brazilian troops stationed in Uruguay nor did they put an end to the blockade: on the contrary, by the end of the conflict the

3772:

When it comes to the operations on land, if Rivera penetrated the territory of the Missões, if they won some battles (Sarandi and Ituzaingó), the results were, in fact, inconclusive, since they lacked the means to repel the Brazilian Forces, so much so that the two major cities of Uruguay at that

3308:

in English), which could also be considered an "Argentine-Brazilian War". The problem with "Cisplatine War" is that it is obviously a Brazilian take on the matter, which would be like trying to impose the term "Brazilian War" (the Spanish name) for the English article. Given that I have no strong

3169:

Knowledge (XXG) is not written in the XIX century, but the XXI one. The United Provinces are a predecesor state of modern Argentina, and it is universally accepted that way (just as the Empire of Brazil is a predecesor state of modern Brazil, which is not an empire). Some people date the birth of

2606:

sources saying this, that their 33 national heroes were just Argentine spies removing them from their beloved Brazil against their will, and then we talk. Even with Manuel Oribe, the decades after his defeat and the triumph of Fructuoso Rivera in the civil war, when the Uruguayan rejection to his

2517:

Regardless of the name of Argentina, if we are going to take in consideration the actual names of the regions at the time of the conflict then "Cisplatine" shouldn't be used either. As this article already states, the 33 Orientals declared independence from Brazil and joined back the country they

2403:

Ow! So the two common names given were "United Provinces of South America" and "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata"?!! And "Argentine Republic" was only used between 1826 an 1827? So, there are two possibilities left: 1) You are trying to make us all of fools believing that since (to you, at

2367:

Please understand the fact that this is an article about a historical period (1810-1831) when the Argentine State had some specific configurations. The article that covers this period of time is called "United Provinces of South America" (alternatively, "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata"),

2184:

But as I pointed, the country was indeed named Argentina at that point. The 1826 Constitution, wich was in force during that time, refers to the country as the "Argentine Nation", not the "United Provinces...". I admit that the whole issue of the names held by the country at each point of history

1603:

We have never been through this before, this talk page has no archives. And, if there was a previous discussion about the name of this article somewhere else, I am not aware of it. By the way, this isn't a poll. I have linked that "Argentine-Brazilian War" is almost equally used than the proposed

1101:

results. Not much, but 343 aren't either. In any case, that confirms that it's a obscure topic in English literature, as both the Spanish and Portuguese names are reflected in translation. And, as pointed, English reliable sources do not take priority when their coverage is so weak and obscure in

4175:

A final note, I'm not a nationalist. I just don't want anti-Brazilian sentiment to distort what happened. My comment in the page of MarshalN20 relates to the fact that from what his editing suggests, if the United Provinces had paraded in the capital of Brazil like Brazilian troops did in Buenos

4151:

Contrary to what the poster MarshalN20 is claiming, I am a responsible poster, and I stand for neutrality and impartiality as much as possible. Don't distort what I said MarshalN20. I did not say Stowell is a good source. He is not. It does not come from someone expert on the subject, nor from a

3583:

alone gets 988 Google Books hits, so together these terms get enough hits to count as 'some'. It is fair criticism of me that 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' shouldn't be on my list, because it only gets one hit. I included it because it was the forth response in my search, so I assumed it was

2904:

All the short "result" attempts and proposals I have seen so far are either misleading or inaccurate, this new one is no exception. It is always implicit, unless noted otherwise, that the result of a war is what the victor of the war was fighting for. A result that says "Brazil loses Cisplatina;

2610:

As for Malvinas, I thought this was already clear, but then let me add some clarification: what I was pointing is that the use itself of the "Malvinas" name s seen by the people in the islands as a tacit recognition of the Argentine sovereignthy claims (regardless of who's right in that dispute,

1966:

are the way they are now: bunch of awful articles. Why's that? Because no one can write anything there because it's certain that you two will appear and turn the miserable editor's life into a living hell. The result is that those articles are left unfinished, because none of you two do anything

4608:

One thing is the name of the article, which by definition can be only 1. Another thing is the name or names that the topic of the article may be known about, which can be two or more (as in this case). Besides, the article should point both the name/s used in English, and the name/s used in the

4105:

and should be treated as such. Stowell simply edited and annotated these writings, whereas the true author is Kingsley who was writing from that time period. Kingsley's opinion of the conflict is his opinion(ie. primary source) and unless backed by a secondary source is the opinion of a Florida

2748:

I strongly believe we should keep it that way, as the Cisplatine War is a very hot issue in the historiographical debate; and even though the traditional nationalist argentinean historiography was discredited by almost all of the historians outside of Argentina, it is still taught mainstream in

1678:

I agree about search engines being only part of the solution in generating evidence to support a claim for a particular name. That's one of the reasons I'm keener on Google Book searches (which just searches published books) or Google Scholar (ditto for academic articles) if we're interested in

1167:

Perhaps you are not aware of it, but you are not taking into account that we are dealing with 3 languages here, not 2. "War of Brasil" is not "Guerra do Brasil" translated into "Guerra del Brasil" in Spanish and then into an English name, it's a Spanish name translated into English. Why "War of

1033:

So, it's a wide usage that is mentioned in 343 books in English. If that proves anything, is that there isn't really a "wide usage", and those wars are an obscure topic in English literature (no big surprise). It's the Argentine, Uruguayan and Brazilian historians who have made really important

4126:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or

2737:

The issue is still a very hot spot for debates and there is no way to easily describe the outcome of the war. Efforts were made to sistematize it in the format you proposed (X victory), but we are dealing with a situation where 2 opposing beligerants ended up having only parts of their claims

2120:

So... it all comes down in that Lecen is holding a grudge about a GA nomination of almost a year ago? It's pointless trying to talk with him, then. If a simple disagreement turns his life into a hell as he says, then talking further will simply increase his aversion without helping to reach a

1407: 1329: 4262:

Look for the history of the conflict, at the end the United Provinces did not have a fleet like they did at the beginning, and the blockade was still in place. The Brazilian performance was not a "disaster" as Stowell claimed it to be. Kingsley, quoted by MarshalN20, even showed a positive

2081: 1997: 1777: 1557: 1367:

In any case, this isn't about verifiability, but about neutrality. Verifiability does not defeat neutrality, if there's a naming conflict between Spanish and Portuguese sources (which got reflected into English use), then we can't say that we should use one of both merely pointing that it

1280: 1277: 1274: 1271: 1268: 953: 950: 938: 917: 914: 911: 908: 905: 899: 896: 893: 890: 887: 2075: 2069: 1991: 1985: 1771: 1765: 1551: 1545: 1283: 1265: 1262: 947: 944: 941: 935: 932: 929: 926: 923: 920: 902: 884: 881: 1253: 1247: 1241: 872: 866: 860: 2063: 1979: 1759: 1539: 1413:". That's not the title of a war, but merely a sentence. It could have been written as "had occurred in the conflict between Brazil and Buenos Aires". C'mon, man. Is this a joke? Why are you doing this? You leave me nochoice but to ignore you from now on, MBelgrano. You're not worth it. 1379:. It is not the Argentine, Brazilian or Uruguayan main use (so we wouldn't be taking sides), and, as pointed before, there are already uses for it. It's verifiable, and it's neutral, and even moe, it won't be a great change from the current article name. Let's move to that one instead. 1256: 1244: 875: 863: 3963:, the quote could reformulated into text appropriate and then cited as a reference. The way it was posted it sounded like some final judgment on the matter, which is wrong, since Stowell is no expert on the conflic, no military historian and he has not even written a book about it. 3804:

of the war far worse then when it began. Did the rebels in Cisplatina won the war? No, they didn't. Their goal was not the independence of Cisplatina, but its annexation to the United Provinces. This is why the war is known as Cisplatine War and not "Uruguayan War of Independence".

1349: 2484:

1825-28. Those are the dates. Won't hurt reading some history books before taking being part on this kind of discussions. Also, Brazil declared war at the end of 1825 to a country named "United Provinces" not "Argentine Republic". Needless to say, this discussion is futile.

4463:

I have no objections to pointing out that Brazil had problems. The events of the war speak for themselves IMO, Brazil clearly had problems. I just don't agree with the Stowell quote; if it is to be used, then it should be put into the format of a text, that would be the

2228: 2773:, and it does not sustain what you are saying, in fact it does not even talk about the Cisplatine War on page 67. What is going on? Please be reasonable and impartial, the United Provinces did not lose the war, this is absurd, nobody did, the war ended with a treaty. 2028:

I'm tired of your lies and personal aggressions, lecen. I coped with them for a long year now, but it is over. If you are not able to limit yourself to discuss the issues at hand, I'l simply ignore you, and I ask you to ignore me as well. Let's go no with the thread.

4421:"En síntesis, ninguno de los beligerantes podía decidir la guerra a su favor. Esto se reflejaba en las declaraciones del enviado Ponsonby al ministro Canning, que hacían una radiografía de la crítica situación financiera y militar atravesada por ambos beligerantes". 730:

You've already shown you know more about this than me (I mean it, not sarcastic), so why don't you integrate the above into the article? I only thought an article was needed, if only as a stub mentioning the historical setting. I basically learned about this through

3942:

To MarshalN20: it is not about threatening. Due to the complexity of the conflict, one can but expect diverse views on it. An opinion from someone who is NOT an expert on the conflict in question, like Stowell, should not be referenced as some kind of authority at

2865:

Three objectives according to whom? When the United Provinces government declared the annexation of Cisplatina the Brazilian government responded by declaring war. It had only one goal: keep Cisplatina at all costs. Anything else, if there was any, was secondary.

1317: 2404:

least) we know nothing about Argentine history we are going to believe in any crap you tell us, and that includes calling a country for a name that used for... a year only. 2) Or you know nothing about your own country's history. Which one should we pick, huh? --

3549:

is true. It might suggest that recent English language scholarship prefers the former title. Google Scholar weights more towards more recent scholarship than Google Books. As another editor noted, Cisplatine War also gets a preference from 21st century books

1604:

name, in English books, as a given name, and by not being a translation of the Argentine, Uruguayan or Brazilian name it's better for the neutral point of view. And this must be the third or forth time I point this, but Lecen always dodged this question so far.

1341: 2615:

was captured during the war and renamed by Argentina as "Puerto Argentino", same as Brazil captured the Banda Oriental and renamed it as Cisplatine. Of course, it was renamed back to Stanley when the islands returned to British control. And, as it can be seen

1953:

Although my articles are always of the highest quality possible and always are elevated to Featured status, anytime I try to write a single article that somehow has Argentina involved, I have to deal with you two. Because of you two articles such as this one,

4510:, with 2,490 results. Most sources tend to attach the date of the conflict next to the name, and others simply use the term "First" prior to the war's name (which is what I have also done in the article). This name is also much closer to the Spanish name of " 975:

When you use google (or google books) to check the usage of terms with more than one word, you must write them between apostrophes to seek the usage of both words used toguether, and not just entries where both words simply appear. "Brazilian War" goes from

3812:

he said that it was said by a non-expert. However, I don't believe that the quote is the main issue in here. The article as a whole should be reworked and improved. Removing of keeping the quote won't resolve the main issue, which is the article itself. --

3635:

Nevertheless, and although the proposed title differs, the reasoning remains the same: i.e., that "Cisplatine" is neutral (it is a generic description of the sphere of the conflict), is unambiguous and is the frequent preference in scholarly publications.

2850:

Brazil had 3 objectives in that war. It succeeded in 2 out of 3. It makes no sense to withhold that information. Your proposal would be fine, if added the fact that Brazil kept the Missiones Orientales and the right to free navigation in the Plata River.

3906:

that you have such sources is child's play and counter-productive. Stowell's quote is from a reliable secondary source and a neutral party to the conflict, and I honestly doubt you know him well-enough to claim his statement is "partial and inaccurate".

3779:

In short, the quote you so much want to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been

2084: 2000: 1780: 1560: 956: 3740:

Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their

1401: 1325: 1259: 1250: 878: 869: 830:— First and most important of all, this international conflict was never called "Argentina-Brazil War". Someone created that. I repeat: this conflict was/is not called anywhere "Argentina-Brazil War". Second, there was no Argentina back then, but the 263: 85: 1311:

Well, it was you who made a proposal based in google book searches. I'm just pointing that you haven't configured your search correctly, and haven't tried all the possible angles. But if you want names of specific books, I can provide them as well.

3926:

In any case, the quote should be reformulated into text appropiate for a wikipedia article, and then cite the historian as a reference. Using a quote as a replacement of such text is not a good editing style, and should be fixed whenever possible.

4127:

third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment.

4038:

Don't distort what I said. It is not a good source. It does not come from a military historian, nor from someone expert on the subject. If it is to be posted in the article, though, I think it would be better if it were posted as suggested by

3515:. As for Google Scholar, 58 and 20 are too tiny to take any reasonable conclusion from them. The only conclusion from such numbers is that this war is an obscure topic in the English-speaking world, as already pointed in the "Legacy" section 3413:. I see thought out points being mentioned and while the less exemplifying points are a bit vague they should not be rudely abashed by claims of sock-puppetry or intentional disruption (no matter how ambiguously these claims are stated). 1941:

I was wondering when MBelgrano's partner would show up. There he is. But it took longer than I expected. I don't know any of you two Argentine fellows mean by "Brazilian bias" by simply using the name that English-written historiograph

3620:

to the former name, but to a third one, so the reasons of the previous move request do not apply here. "Cisplatine War" has more results than "Argentina-Brazil War", but "Argentine-Brazilian War" is even more used than either options.

3170:

Argentina in 1810, in the May Revolution, and others in 1816, in the declaration of independence; in any case the difference is pointless here. From that point on, the different names using during the national organization are just

1717:. He's insisting on that just to dodge this other result, surely because he has no answer to refute it. And if you want something more specific and scholar than google searches in huge numbers of books, so be it: I understand that 4234:

By the way, I sent Kansas Bear a response to his comment in his talk page. As I wrote to him, the statement I am using from Stowell is a direct quote from the historian. He then proceeds to cite his statement with Ron Seckinger's

3767:). Brazil lost some naval battles, but after the battle of Monte Santiago their navy was reduced practically to nothing, and they could no longer operate in high seas; Brazil had the naval supremacy right in front of Buenos Aires. 2738:

accepted (Brazil, which kept its soverignty over the Missiones Orientales, sustained its right to free navigation in the Plata River and got war reparations payments; and Uruguay which obtained its full independence to Brazil

2580:

entire chapter of this historian's book about Rosas' atrocities. I'm getting tired of MBelgrano's behavior, of selecting pirces of text from books whihch he believes that fit his point of view, even if taken out of context. --

3996:

It is not a good summary of the events at all, and it is misleading as a big-text quote. Stowell is no expert or authority on the subject, and the course of events was much more complex than his words imply. I wouldn't mind

3453:. Nevertheless, both terms are duly exposed in the article's lead and, therefore, I see no reason to rename it. Not to mention the consensus achieved just about a year and a half ago (December 2010) to rename the article to 2836:

the United Provinces win? No, it did not. It did not manage to annex Cisplatina, its true goal. The infobox should read simply: "1)Brazil loses Cisplatina; 2)Cisplatina becomes the sovereign nation of Uruguay". That's it. --

4833:

to make it more neutral we can simply say "over control of the Banda Oriental", what do you think? Bear in mind the term "Banda Oriental" is being used in a geographical sense here, like Amazon, Siberia, Antarctica, etc.

4543:

was not successful. It seems likely that, if opinions remain the same as in April, the editors here would also oppose First Argentine-Brazilian War as a title. Though that title already exists as a redirect to this one.

1168:

Brazil" and not "Brazilian War"? Because, in Spanish, the "Brasil" of "Guerra del Brasil" is a noun, not an adjetive. And the use of "War of (noun)" instead of (adjetive) war" is not unknown to the English language. See

2121:

consensus. IANVS, just ignore him, and talk with the other users around here. It's the best way to avoid this from growing into an all-out controversy instead of just a simple discussion about the name of this article.

4263:

appreciation of Brazil. There are many other opinions, you just have to read the literature on the conflict, as I said, the literature on the conflict, not some book which is not even about the conflict in itself.

4424:"In short, none of the countries could decide the war. This was reflected in the words of Ponsonby to Canning, in which he made a critical assessment of the military and financial situation faced by both sides". 1949:

causing all that hysteria in a desperate attempt to show that dictator Rosas as a democratic leader. Ow, and I almost forgot, seeing everywhere a "Brazilian bias" there. Yes, Hchc2009 was right, he saw all this

4762: 1462:. Anyway, this isn't a poll but a discussion. I mantain my final proposal: "Argentine-Brazilian War" is used in a similar proportion than "Cisplatine War" in English books, as a given name for the war. (see 4299:

No, what matters is that Stowell is not: an expert on the subject nor has written a book on it, his area is not the history of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. His quote is a misleading simplification of the

2745:

It was chosen to state, briefly, the outcomes to each side in order to prevent edition wars and POV induced editions and to clearly state why it was merely a partial victory to some and a defeat to another.

1970:

Trust me, you're doing more harm than good in here. It's like you do this just for fun, you know? "Hey, let's mess with him and turn his life into a hell, after all, he's an evil Brazilian!" Grow up, ok?

2742:

the United Provinces del Plata) and one belligerant whose claims were not satisfied (The United Provinces del Plata, who failed to annex Uruguay and failed to prevent Free Navigation in the Plata River).

4213:

He keeps deviating from the topic because he can't answer it beyond his nationalist rant. Again, I ask, where is the IP editor's "military historian" who contradicts the information provided by Stowell?

2442:

The years 1826-1828 are, precisely, the years this war took place. In any case, the historical identity of the Argentine State since then, regardless its succesive formations, is not in doubt. Salut, --

1722: 1321: 1047: 3092:

and Brazil, but nobody is that technical). On the other hand, "Cisplatina" was a former province of the Empire of Brazil, and hardly anyone beyond history experts will recognize that name beforehand.

2802:

mean anything: simply move the references to that section, and go into more detail about what do they say. A "See Aftermath" link contains zero POV, and won't have any unless changed for another one.

2749:

Argentina and its interpretation of the war distorts several facts of the war and its timeline (even claiming that Uruguay was annexed to the United Provinces, which did not occured in any timeline).

2974:

harsh blockade right in front of Buenos Aires, controlling the mouth of the Plate river, which caused them serious economic consequences and this was quite important in the outcome of the conflict (

1051: 1043: 4936: 3746:

Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously",

4941: 4319:"But in its major test of the 1820s-the Banda Oriental dispute-British policy proved less than efficacious. Great Britain failed to prevent the outbreak of war, suffered severe commercial losses 634: 528: 2264:, and even not knowing Spanish you will all recognize the "Nación Argentina" name at the very first article. You wanted a reliable source stating that country was named Argentina? There is one 696:

Argentina, being part of the United Provinces of the River Plate: by that time there was no notion of Uruguay as an independent country but as part of a confederation of provinces that had

3580: 4921: 4609:

countries involved if their language is not English (in this case, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay); the name/s in English may or may not be direct translations of those other names.

2230:)". And to imagine that you made me lose a lot of precious time arguing with you about this tyrant's brutal regime (for the curious ones, I'd recommend chapter 6, "The Terror"). -- 989: 4355:

That in no way contradicts what Stowell wrote. The funny part is that Seckinger is the source cited by Stowell. Trying to use Seckinger against Stowell is completely pointless.

1924:" is Brazilian bias, no way to denny this. BTW, the Argentine Republic (named as such by the 1826 Consittution) waged the war. So yes, it was a Brazil-Argentina war. Salut, -- 154: 111: 981: 3300:

preference to the term "Argentine-Brazilian War"; however, 21st century books give some more support (by very little) to the term "Cisplatine War". Added that there is the

4991: 1861:

references the country as the "Argentine nation". So, Argentine-Brazilian War (as a war named after the countries or territories involved) may have been used even by then

985: 854: 639: 3174:, unadvised in Knowledge (XXG). A name that is common and simpler to readers is better than an obscure but "technically correct" name, that's why we have a article named 1499:". Since its an article about the Empire of Brazil, it does make sense. What does not, is you flawed behavior. You're a dishonest. I deplore how you behave, MBelgrano. -- 4699: 4695: 4681: 3575:, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same. In my case, I think you misread what I wrote. I wrote 977: 3902:

You cannot delete sourced content from the article without a good reason. If you have sources that you want to use to improve the article, go ahead and do it. Simply

140: 4986: 4911: 3512: 4996: 4931: 4926: 2518:

used to be a part of during the Congress of Florida. So, at the time of the conflict, it wasn't the "Cisplatine province" anymore. Even more, the war was fought

3884:

By the way, pointing out he is not an expert on the conflict or the fact that he did not write a book about the conflict is not a personal attack on him at all.

3701:"The war between Brazil and the Republic of Buenos Aires stemmed from a longstanding Spanish and Portuguese rivlary over the Banda Oriental, the area of modern 4871:

Do you have a realiable source for this that's not pointing to other articles on Knowledge (XXG) itself? If so, then you can proceed to add Oriental Province.

3190:

called. If nobody refers to 1851 as the "Argentine-Brazilian War", then the point is moot. With that logic, the name "Cisplatine War" may be also used for the

1588:. I'm sure we've been through this before recently. Perhaps it just feels like it. The most common English name, I continue to believe, is the Cisplatine War. 462: 385: 3099:

requesting to undo the former move request, this is a new one. The old one was from "Argentina-Brazil War" (names of countries, not demonyms), which had just

2933:

with nearly 10,000 men no less; that sounds like quite a feat. Why isn't the Battle of Juncal mentioned in the article? I thought it was pretty significant.

3084: 1360:, etc. By the way, even if there are no results for "Argentina-Brazil War", there is a similar ammount to the Cisplatine ones for "Argentine-Brazilian War" ( 4906: 4951: 4916: 3008:

basically intact, not to mention the troops in Colónia and Montevideo, which were supported by our Navy, and thus difficult to be expelled; see this link:

1103: 375: 4792:

The legal status of the Banda Oriental before the war is a matter for its own article. What matters for the scope of this article and its time period is:

3100: 1097:

The translation of "Guerra del Brasil" as "Brazilian War", and thus the search for such term, was a translation attempted by Lecen. "War of Brazil" gives

500: 46: 4657: 3145: 615: 4966: 490: 4806:

If you want to make it clear in the lede that the region was called "Banda Oriental" by the United Provinces, then OK. But adding the term "Oriental

4757:

The Banda Oriental was not a province, state or administrative unit, it was the name of a territory located in present-day Uruguay. In 1813, Artigas

1795:"Argentine-Brazilian War". 181 hits on Google as a whole. 280 hits on Google Books (published works). 19 hits on Google Scholar (published articles). 1463: 1361: 106: 80: 3088: 1081:

as "Cisplatine War" seems to be "the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" (

2523:

talk in English so their usage would prevail anyway, but if they (or this wikipedia) had some other language, we wouldn't be acting any different.

349: 4981: 4956: 4946: 1902:

See my comment just above yours. Yes, it was the Argentine Nation who was waging the war, not a former state that would become Argentina one day.

1055: 605: 4332: 3979:

I disagree with the suggestion. The quote is a good summary of the events, and is fine as a big-text quote on the side. Beep beep, boop boop.--

2719: 1975:

If it's a Goddamn Brazilian bias, could any of you two explain to me how how it is possible that English-written books about Argentina such as

2055:

Stop evading the matter once and for all. Placing an "oppose" vote isn't enough. If it is a Brazilian bias, why do English-written books use "

466: 4961: 4176:

Aires, he would not hesitate in posting a pic of it. I've never cared to post a depiction of the Brazilian troops in Buenos Aires during the

4069:

reliable "military historians" that contradict Stowell's statement? And before you do it again, please stop filling up talk spaces with your

4065:

historian is a complete absurdity. You keep repeating that Stowell is incorrect, and yet you bring no evidence to prove otherwise. Where are

3706: 3577:"Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War' or 'Argentine-Brazilian War of 1825' (or '1826' or '(1826-1828)' )..." 2956: 115: 2787:

The Donato quote was a mistake. I accidentaly pasted it instead of another quote. Thanks for noticing the mistake. I´ll fix it right away. -

1792:"Cisplatine War". 221 hits on Google as a whole. 357 hits on Google Books (published works). 75 hits on Google Scholar (published articles). 1011:

exist. Also, your links doesn't mean anything. I saw at them "Brazilian War of Independence" in "Brazilian War" results. I am talking about

5001: 4976: 3747: 2852: 2822: 2788: 2756: 1098: 3237:, whose sole contribution was to comment here (and, strangely enough, not even an hour after the opening of this move request). There are 3214:. The name "Cisplatine War" is neutral, since it relates to a defunct state, not two countries. Beside, there was no Argentina back then. 856:). Since this is the English-written Knowledge (XXG), I believe the name used for the conflict should be the English-version widely used. 581: 762:

the war). Despite most critics picturing him as an undecisive leader, he was in fact the commanding general and knew how to mobilize the

716:" it's not -on most cases- because of some sort of nazism or expansionism, but because of recognizing in some way the Banda Oriental as 4971: 4901: 3260: 2940: 3020:), and his incursion into basically empty Misiones acted against peace (which was longed by the United Provinces), not in favour of it. 4465: 4433: 4380: 4339: 4301: 4264: 4181: 4044: 4002: 3964: 3944: 3885: 3869: 3781: 3606:

for all the reasons advanced in favor of the move to the current title. I've encountered no change in the sources over the past year.

4558:

This is not a move request. No reason exists as to why this widely known title for the conflict should be removed from the article.--

4195:

The battle of Caseros has nothing to do in this discussion, it was decades later and during another conflict. Stay on topic, please.

3152:, which occurred in 1851, more than 20 years after the Cisplatine War, between the Empire of Brazil and the Argentine Confederation. 2611:

which is beyond the purpose of this comparison). But now that I think of it, there's a better example to compare, within that topic.

343: 328: 289: 4677:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2295: 831: 1634:"Argentine-Brazil War" (with an -e) isn't popular either in the literature: another 9 hits come up on Google Book, none on Scholar. 4428:

by the end of the conflict only Brazil had a fleet so to say, the United Provinces relied on the activities of corsairs after the

3148:. What's next? The United States of America in 1658? And let's not forget that there was an actual "Argentine-Brazilian War": the 1316:, one of the most important English-speaking historians working with 19 Century South American history, uses "War of Brazil" at 458: 447: 408: 2207:

Ow, there are no sources to support your claims and thus, this entire useless discussion... of course... how convenient, right?

1804:

On this basis I still hold to the view that the most common English-language term for the 1825 conflict is the Cisplatine War.

1637:

When I worked on the later conflicts, the most common name I remember coming up in the reference works was the Cisplatine War.

568: 523: 55: 1218:. This a fabricated name by some Wikipedian editor. Since this name has to go, another must be placed in its place. There is 4358:

Again, for the fifth time, please provide a reliable secondary source who contradicts the information provided by Stowell.--

2337: 1713:

this specific conflict. This refutes Lecen's constant statement that his proposal may be the "most common use" in English,

3837:

attack on Daniel Stowell holds no ground. He is a professional historian whose credibility cannot be challenged simply by

3278:), first to vandalize the move request and now to oppose. Again, not even an hour after the opening of this move request 1324:"Cisplatine" just to reference the short-lived brazilian province. There are further non-Cisplatine uses by other people 4742: 3445:. Both terms are widely used in history books of English literature, but according to a quick search on Google Scholar, 992:. In any case, I support the current name, to avoid giving undue weight to either the Argentine or the Brazilian usage. 4107: 3658:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

3052:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2707:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

798:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

4315:

Not a military historian, but a historian who worked with Latin American history and wrote about it (Ron L Seckinger):

1721:

is the most recognized English-speaking historian making works related to the 19º century history of South America. A

4658:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111203205317/http://www.uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Portal.Base/Web/verContenido.aspx?ID=201417

4102: 1840: 1416:

The links I gave above are from English-written books written by historians and the title they use for this war is "

1145:

would be "Brazilian War", not "War of Brazil". And the question raised is not how many results Google can find but "

708:

opposed to him. If Uruguay is now an independent country, and with this I'm not questioning its independence, it is

3118:

Note: I had the username "MBelgrano" back then, my account has been renamed since then, as pointed at my user page

1963: 1857:

By the way, the use of the name "Argentina" is correct even from the perspective of that specific time period. The

1470:

used in books (we wouldn't be making it up), and it's the ideal name for both verifiabily and neutrality policies.

1177: 3753:

This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.

4667: 4448:

vote themselves which country they wanted to belong to; but this proposal was strongly rejected by Lord Ponsonby

2617: 2612: 4698:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4278:

Again, I ask, where is the IP editor's "military historian" who contradicts the information provided by Stowell?

4152:

military historian, he never wrote about the Cisplatine War (the book is not specifically about the conflict).

2545:

the Malvinas Islands, isn't it? :) The Spanish Knowledge (XXG) article does indeed refer to the conflict as the

1733:(meaning, reading myself) his biography of José de San Martín, in the section contemporary to this war. He does 1625:

The reasons for my believing that the Cisplatine War is the most common English name for the conflict are that:

1224:

the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources

1147:

the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources

823: 4429: 2960: 1454:

I don't really need to say that you have a Brazilian bias and reject to represent other points of view fairly.

1181: 1050:" just 201. And now that we come to it, which of both has a higher historiographical production about the war? 3796:

I'm not an expert on this war. I've read about it over and over, but not in detail. I could discuss about the

3171: 2856: 2826: 2792: 2760: 2261: 1858: 61: 32: 4661: 4333:

http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/hist/South%20American%20Power%20Politics%20during%20the%201820s.pdf

3488: 3264: 847: 4733: 4649: 4540: 4016:

First you claim that it's a bad source, and now you claim it is good but that the article should display it

3191: 3080: 2944: 2607:

action during that civil war was absolute... not even then they hold the cause of the 33 Orientals in doubt.

1376: 110:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 3219: 2952: 2936: 1836: 1082: 4850: 4614: 4469: 4453: 4437: 4384: 4343: 4305: 4268: 4200: 4185: 4048: 4006: 3968: 3948: 3932: 3889: 3873: 3785: 3626: 3520: 3511:

In fact, that "Some of the Google Books hits are for 'First Argentine-Brazilian War'" is an outright lie:

3392: 3283: 3246: 3199: 3123: 3108: 2294:

Oh, no! So, does that mean that all those history books (including Knowledge (XXG) with an article called

1718: 1313: 745: 255: 4098: 3410: 3025: 721: 4717:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4705: 4137: 1622:- you're right, this is the first time this has been discussed over the Cisplatine/Argentina-Brazil War. 812: 580:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4648:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 4228: 3748:

http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

1755:

Again: then, could explain to me how it is possible that English-written books about Argentina such as

1042:. So, let's seek (turning on results only in English): "Cisplatine War" is used 343 times as pointed, " 3542: 3357:

I was just about to say the same thing, coming from the centralised RM list. The en dash is required.

3215: 4862: 4858: 4853:'. In the article of Thirty-Three Orientals it shows that it was called Oriental Province and in the 4830: 4782: 4778: 4601: 4583: 4567: 4549: 4527: 4402: 4367: 4291: 4248: 4082: 4029: 3988: 3916: 3856: 3726: 3678: 3546: 3504: 3318: 2778: 2649: 2153: 1892: 4813:

Simply look at the peace terms in the note and you won't find "Oriental Province" anywhere in there.

4114: 3332:

support if an en dash (–) were proposed instead of a hyphen (-). See the well-established guideline

3021: 1628:

A Google Book search provides 357 hits for "Cisplatine War", but only 41 for "Argentina-Brazil War".

3710: 3458: 3421: 3305: 2986: 2910: 2811: 2727: 2662: 2625: 2528: 2269: 2190: 2126: 1907: 1866: 1848: 1742: 1609: 1526: 1475: 1384: 1193: 1185: 1111: 1066: 997: 771: 736: 4507:

The term "Argentine-Brazilian War" has a large number of reliable sources that use it. Please see

4156: 4040: 3998: 3960: 1535:

Can you explain to me how could it be possible that English-written books about Argentina such as

4001:

or some other user turning the quote into an appropriate short text, with a reference to Stowell.

3066: 2666: 2554: 1887:

Makes sense to change since the nation of Argentina didn't even exsist during this time period.

1809: 1684: 1654: 1593: 1169: 1086: 453: 451:, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to 332:, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to 4702:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4218:

I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts

4161:

I am not basing it on "original research", as falsely claimed by MarshalN20, I based it on facts

1035: 4810:" in the lede when it was definitely not an Argentine province when the war broke out is wrong. 4718: 4237:

The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building

3687:

The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831: Diplomacy and State Building

4876: 4857:

they reintegrated into the United Provinces which was the reason why the Cisplatine War began

4839: 4820: 4610: 4449: 4196: 3928: 3763:

the Argentine themselves ("Los efectos de la guerra en la economía de las Provincias Unidas",

3622: 3589: 3516: 3477: 3388: 3279: 3242: 3234: 3195: 3119: 3104: 740: 4798:

2. After being invaded and annexed it was turned into a Brazilian province called Cisplatina.

3333: 4133: 3275: 2685: 808: 674: 320: 4725: 3829:: Your original research is interesting, but not acceptable in Knowledge (XXG) (Please see 3414: 3337: 1393:

MBelgrano, enough is enough. The name "Cisplatine War" is being suggested because it's the

1210:

The matter is not what is the correct translation. It's quite simple: this conflict is/was

4593: 4579: 4559: 4545: 4519: 4394: 4359: 4283: 4240: 4074: 4021: 3980: 3908: 3848: 3842: 3817: 3718: 3670: 3496: 3366: 3310: 3238: 3157: 2871: 2841: 2774: 2645: 2585: 2490: 2447: 2409: 2303: 2235: 2170: 2149: 2095: 2034: 2011: 1929: 1888: 1669: 1571: 1504: 1425: 1290: 1154: 1020: 963: 732: 577: 4795:

1. The region (geographically speaking) was called Banda Oriental prior to being invaded.

4413:

It clearly does. This is from an Argentine site specialized on the history of Argentina (

4224: 4070: 3830: 3649: 3304:(albeit, in Spanish-world historiography it is considered part of the "Guerra Grande" or 3043: 2698: 789: 17: 1967:

there too. Nor you two let anyone work on them neither you two do anything on them also.

1839:

tells us that, when there is no single obvious common name for the topic, we should use

4774: 4684:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4641: 3797: 3694: 3669:

Please use this section to discuss any concerns with the aforementioned professional.--

3417: 3076: 2982: 2979: 2906: 2807: 2723: 2621: 2524: 2265: 2186: 2122: 1903: 1862: 1844: 1738: 1605: 1522: 1471: 1380: 1189: 1138: 1107: 1062: 993: 827: 767: 624: 439: 339: 4724:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4691: 3773:

time, Colonia and Montevideo remained under Brazilian control throughout the conflict.

304: 283: 4895: 4518:" is an invented Spanish term, and should not be used in the article. All the best.-- 3764: 3685:

Daniel Stowell cites as a reference for his statement the following: "Ron Seckinger,

3062: 2975: 2550: 1959: 1805: 1680: 1650: 1589: 700:

as an informal name, officialized when the Banda Uruguay had already been separated.

560: 692:" That isn't really precise, as the Banda Oriental -Uruguay- was already considered 4872: 4835: 4816: 4155:

As a proof of my willingness to compromise, I agreed on posting it as suggested by

4106:

planter/slave owner, which in the eyes of Knowledge (XXG) would disqualify it as a

3637: 3607: 3585: 3473: 1458:. And yes, you are indeed proposing this change because it's the Brazilian usage, 1645:

The label has stuck pretty consistently since in the English language literature.

1495:

second link, I wrote "Changing the name of conflicts for the ones used in Brazil

4177: 3301: 3149: 2681: 1955: 1946: 1619: 1173: 1126: 669: 3841:

or by your analysis of primary sources. Again, I encourage you to contact him (

4690:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4668:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110813051915/http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/MotM.htm

4180:, because I'm not a nationalist. And this is what I was trying to show to him. 4172:

big-text quote is misleading, so much so that Lecen has agreed with me on it.

3834: 3813: 3359: 3296:- Per Google Books results, it seems historical analysis of the sources gives 3153: 2867: 2837: 2581: 2486: 2443: 2405: 2333: 2299: 2231: 2165: 2091: 2030: 2007: 1925: 1726: 1665: 1567: 1500: 1421: 1286: 1150: 1134: 1016: 959: 550: 429: 423: 402: 310: 4282:(USA), and even cites his statement with a specialized book on the subject.-- 2806:

what Brazil was fighting for in this war? A casual reader may understand so.

4414: 3017: 3009: 3001: 2752:

I hope you understand my point and we can reach a consensus over this issue.

2059:" and how is it possible that English-written books about Argentina such as 1521:

By the way, you haven't replied yet the "Argentine-Brazilian War" proposal.

1222:

book that calls it "War of Brazil" or "Brazilian War". "Cisplatine War" is "

842:". I looked in Google books and found out that there is no "Brazilian War" ( 544: 517: 457:. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the 334: 4120:

used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

4662:

http://www.uruguayeduca.edu.uy/Portal.Base/Web/verContenido.aspx?ID=201417

3558:. So, seems that more recent scholarship is preferring 'Cisplatine War'. 2573: 1945:

However, I still haven't forgot your wonderful (I'm being ironic) job in

1411:

Nothing very important had occurred in the war of Brazil and Buenos Aires

766:

of Rio Grande do Sul, who were very happy with his appointment in 1828.

4880: 4866: 4843: 4824: 4786: 4747: 4618: 4603: 4587: 4569: 4553: 4529: 4473: 4457: 4441: 4404: 4388: 4369: 4347: 4309: 4293: 4272: 4250: 4204: 4189: 4141: 4084: 4052: 4031: 4010: 3990: 3972: 3952: 3936: 3918: 3893: 3877: 3858: 3821: 3789: 3728: 3702: 3680: 3640: 3630: 3610: 3593: 3524: 3506: 3481: 3463: 3425: 3396: 3372: 3349: 3320: 3287: 3268: 3250: 3223: 3203: 3161: 3127: 3112: 3070: 3029: 2990: 2964: 2914: 2875: 2860: 2845: 2830: 2815: 2796: 2782: 2764: 2731: 2689: 2670: 2661:, most common name in English (as confirmed by Google Books search). -- 2653: 2629: 2589: 2558: 2532: 2494: 2451: 2413: 2307: 2273: 2260:

topic, but the specific thing has already been referenced: here is the

2239: 2194: 2175: 2157: 2130: 2099: 2038: 2015: 1933: 1911: 1896: 1870: 1852: 1813: 1746: 1688: 1673: 1658: 1613: 1597: 1575: 1530: 1508: 1479: 1429: 1388: 1294: 1197: 1158: 1115: 1089: 1070: 1024: 1001: 967: 816: 775: 750: 724: 720:

of the provinces that, by their own will, form the Argentine Nation. --

678: 4671: 3705:. In 1816 Portuguese troops from Brazil occuppied the area during the 1040:

unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available

4097:

An opinion from an uninvolved editor: Daniel Stowell's collection of

573: 3387:. That was a technical detail, that could had been fixed directly. 2546: 98: 74: 4159:, i.e, not as a big-quote text, which is entirely misleading. And 3800:

but I couldn't do the same here. Not at the present time, at leat.

2541:...to be fair, the Spanish-language name for the Falkland Islands 1789:

Right, have tried Argentine-Brazilian War as well. Totals so far:

1618:

Apologies - I was thinking of the rather similar debate about the

4061:

To claim that Daniel Stowell is not reliable because he is not a

3259:- I said that the new name would be more harmful than helpful. -- 2620:, the usage of the name itself is contentious and involves a POV 2086:(different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name " 2002:(different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name " 1782:(different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name " 1562:(different book than the previously mentioned one) use the name " 3757:

Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:

1801:

Cambridge University texts I can find tend to go for Cisplatine.

1007:

Not surprised by your vote, but we can not use a name that does

1737:

call it "Cisplatine War" anywhere, even when talking about it.

1102:

comparison with the local usage. Note that there are even some

712:

to British commercial interests, and when Argentines say that "

3868:

wrong and gives a partial and inaccurate view of the conflict.

3616:

It has been pointed in the opening that this proposed name is

3409:- A bit of a civility between users here would go a long way. 3175: 348:

and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our

26: 3309:

opinion on this subject, I render a neutral vote. Regards.--

1725:

of his name and "Cisplatine" provides only a mention to the

623: 254: 139: 3087:

google book results for "Argentine-Brazilian War" and only

2769:

Could you quote the sources here? I looked at this source,

4652:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

4129:

Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

2821:(and more specifically, the Harbour-city of Montevideo) - 2680:

Google Books verifies Cisplatine War is the common name.

4761:

created the Oriental Province and on March 7, 1814, the

4494:(Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), p. 44. 3042:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

1226:", and thus, is the one that should be used from now on. 788:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

4645: 4575: 3709:. In 1821 the area was incorporated into Brazil as the 3230: 1459: 1455: 2372:

this State had during this period (it was also called

2223:

By the way, I'm really enjoying reading John Lynch's "

3648:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2771:

Dicionário das batalhas brasileiras By Hernâni Donato

2697:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

4937:

Start-Class South American military history articles

4803:

All of this is explained and sourced in the article.

4767:

Eastern Intendance Government of the Río de la Plata

2980:

http://www.reocities.com/ulysses_leal/ituzaingo.html

1631:

A Google Scholar search gives 75 and 9 respectively.

984:(with apostrophes); but "Cisplatine War" falls from 572:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 338:. If you would like to participate, you can improve 152:

This article has been checked against the following

4942:

South American military history task force articles

4694:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4231:, and some of you may need a refresh on it as well. 3735:

This is the quote you so much wanted to post there:

690:

and decided to join a confederation with Argentina.

237: 151: 4578:, where he removed that wording from the article. 3765:http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm 2976:http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm 1375:If the article is to be moved, I suggest doing to 4922:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in History 3697:). This is the full text of Stowell's statement: 1466:) It isn't the name used by any of the sides, it 1137:" (not "War of Korea"), "Guerra do Paraguai" is " 1085:), and there are certainly enough such sources. 4393:That in no way contradicts what Stowell wrote.-- 4239:. Stowell's statement is not a primary source.-- 1214:called "Argentina-Brazil War". Again: this name 1061:By the way, I find your comment a bit aggresive 4338:As you can see, the situation was more complex. 4680:This message was posted before February 2018. 3182:". As for 1851, it does not matter how a war 2338:Talk:United Provinces of South America#Answer 704:as many provinces were governed by Unitarian 8: 124:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 2332:Please, don't bother to answer, your buddy 1038:states that English sources are preferred, 1013:actual names used to describe this conflict 30: 4539:, where a proposal to move the article to 4536: 4321:due to the Brazilian blockade of the Plata 3959:I don't oppose the suggestion of the user 3274:Note: The sole edits by this IP are here ( 3194:that established the Cisplatine province. 2061:Argentina: a primary source cultural guide 1977:Argentina: a primary source cultural guide 1757:Argentina: a primary source cultural guide 1709:"Brazilianphobia"? So much for good faith. 1537:Argentina: a primary source cultural guide 735:'s show and after writing the article for 512: 397: 278: 264:South American military history task force 234: 148: 69: 4992:Mid-importance history of Brazil articles 4912:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in History 4640:I have just modified 2 external links on 4537:Talk:Cisplatine War#Requested move (2012) 4415:http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-026.htm 4325:until both sides had come to realize that 3844:) if you have any concerns with his work. 3018:http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-033.htm 3010:http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-025.htm 3002:http://www.argentina-rree.com/3/3-026.htm 1395:name widely used by English-written books 1058:for "Guerra da Cisplatina" in portuguese. 4763:Supreme Director of the United Provinces 2225:Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas 1318:Argentine Caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas 849:) but there were plenty of results for " 104:This article is within the scope of the 4753:Oriental Province and not Band Oriental 4483: 3513:there's a single result for that search 3487:This is not true. "Cisplatine War" has 3437:could be ambiguous with respect to the 3146:United Provinces of the Río de la Plata 1129:", not "War of Crimea". The same with " 514: 399: 280: 71: 4987:Start-Class history of Brazil articles 4907:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles 2720:Template:Infobox military conflict/doc 2644:useless discussion. Regards to all, 114:. To use this banner, please see the 4997:History of Brazil task force articles 4932:Start-Class military history articles 4927:Start-Class vital articles in History 4514:" (Brazilian War). Lastly, the term " 4328:a military solution was not feasible' 4323:, and could not mediate a settlement 3707:Spanish American wars of independence 3491:while "Argentine-Brazilian War" has ( 360:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Argentina 127:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 4769:, which was later given the name of 3407:Neutral Comment (Regarding Civility) 3103:results, and I'm not asking for it. 3057:The result of the move request was: 1054:for "Guerra del Brasil" in Spanish, 803:The result of the move request was: 566:This article is within the scope of 4672:http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/motm.htm 4574:I take it this is your response to 3547:'Argentine-Brazilian War' (20 hits) 2538:At the danger of going off topic... 2073:A new economic history of Argentina 1989:A new economic history of Argentina 1769:A new economic history of Argentina 1549:A new economic history of Argentina 1106:for "Uruguayan War of Independence" 475:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Uruguay 60:It is of interest to the following 4952:High-importance Argentine articles 4917:Start-Class level-5 vital articles 4331:." p. 26, you can access it here: 4020:to be displayed. I do not agree.-- 2336:gave us all the correct answer in 958:etc, etc, etc... Regards to all, 714:Uruguay es una provincia argentina 590:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Brazil 25: 4644:. Please take a moment to review 3579:, which is completely accurate. 3571:Also, with calling my comment an 2296:United Provinces of South America 2067:Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide 1983:Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide 1763:Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide 1543:Argentina: The Bradt Travel Guide 1188:which you should know very well. 832:United Provinces of South America 4967:High-importance Uruguay articles 4227:breach. IP editor needs to read 4216:The only response he provides: " 3378: 635:the History of Brazil task force 553: 543: 516: 432: 422: 401: 313: 303: 282: 211: 200: 189: 178: 167: 97: 73: 40: 31: 4166:United Provinces lacked a fleet 3581:"Argentine-Brazilian War (1825" 834:. The war is called in Brazil " 610:This article has been rated as 495:This article has been rated as 380:This article has been rated as 4982:Mid-importance Brazil articles 4957:WikiProject Argentina articles 4947:Start-Class Argentine articles 2374:"Argentine Republic in 1826-27 2262:Argentine Constitution of 1826 1859:1826 Constitution of Argentina 1456:You proudly said that yourself 363:Template:WikiProject Argentina 1: 4619:18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4604:18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4588:17:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4570:17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4554:17:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4530:15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4503:First Argentine-Brazilian War 4474:01:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC) 4458:01:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC) 4442:23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 4405:16:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC) 4389:02:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC) 4370:02:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC) 4348:01:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC) 4310:00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC) 4294:21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4273:21:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4251:20:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4205:20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4190:20:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4142:19:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4085:19:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4053:17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4032:16:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 4011:16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3991:16:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3973:15:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3953:15:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3937:15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3919:15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3894:14:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3878:14:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3859:14:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3822:12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3790:12:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3729:16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 3681:03:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 2690:08:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) 2671:10:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC) 2654:16:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2630:17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2590:14:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2559:12:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2533:11:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2495:05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2452:05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2414:03:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2308:03:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2274:03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2240:03:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2195:02:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2176:02:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 2158:23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 2131:20:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 2100:19:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 2039:19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 2016:18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 1934:17:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 1912:17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 1897:07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC) 1871:21:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1853:20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1814:19:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1747:18:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1689:13:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1674:13:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1659:09:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 1614:21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1598:18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1576:15:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1531:14:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1509:14:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1480:13:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1430:12:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1389:12:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 1295:18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1198:18:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1159:17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1116:17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1090:16:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 1071:21:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 1025:20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 1002:20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 968:19:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC) 751:01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 725:00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 679:20:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 632:This article is supported by 584:and see a list of open tasks. 4962:Start-Class Uruguay articles 3030:12:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 2947:) 05:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC) 1497:and in English-Written books 1406:The second link you brought 1034:studies about this war. And 817:23:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 684:Confederation with Argentina 478:Template:WikiProject Uruguay 107:Military history WikiProject 5002:WikiProject Brazil articles 4977:Start-Class Brazil articles 4773:in itself article from the 4492:Balancing Evils Judiciously 3584:significant. My mistake. 3144:Argentina in 1825, but the 3095:Note, by the way, that I'm 2991:18:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC) 2365:Here it is what he wrote: " 1400:The first link is this one 1141:" (not "War of Paraguay"). 593:Template:WikiProject Brazil 5018: 4972:Uruguay (history) articles 4902:Start-Class vital articles 4748:05:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC) 4711:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4637:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3641:17:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 3631:11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 3611:08:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 3594:00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 3543:"Cisplatine War" (58 hits) 3525:03:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 3507:01:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) 3482:18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3464:18:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3426:08:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3397:12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3373:06:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3350:03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3321:03:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3288:02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3269:02:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3251:02:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3224:02:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3204:12:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3162:01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3128:01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3113:01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC) 3071:10:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 2965:02:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC) 2915:11:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 2876:02:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 2861:02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 2846:11:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC) 2831:09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) 2816:21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 2797:09:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) 2783:20:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 2765:04:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 2732:12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 1964:War of the Triple Alliance 1178:War of the First Coalition 776:10:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 616:project's importance scale 501:project's importance scale 386:project's importance scale 172:Referencing and citation: 4259:trying to make it to be. 3433:As per Lecen. The use of 980:(without apostrophes) to 664:oth Brazil and Argentina 631: 609: 538: 494: 417: 379: 298: 262: 233: 130:military history articles 92: 68: 18:Talk:Argentina–Brazil War 4881:23:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 4867:21:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 4844:05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 4825:04:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 4787:04:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC) 4430:battle of Monte Santiago 4379:of the United Provinces. 3655:Please do not modify it. 3049:Please do not modify it. 2704:Please do not modify it. 1182:War of the Confederation 795:Please do not modify it. 445:This article is part of 326:This article is part of 4633:External links modified 4541:Argentine-Brazilian War 4115:Knowledge (XXG):Primary 3451:Argentine–Brazilian War 3435:Argentine–Brazilian War 3229:Note: this comment was 3192:Luso-Brazilian invasion 3136:. The name proposed is 3081:Argentine-Brazilian War 1920:The mere denomination " 1377:Argentine-Brazilian War 1133:" which is written as " 238:Associated task forces: 183:Coverage and accuracy: 4576:a recent edit by Lecen 3180:Canis lupus familiaris 2718:As it is described at 2547:Guerra de las Malvinas 1314:John Lynch (historian) 757:Carlos Frederico Lecor 628: 259: 216:Supporting materials: 144: 4765:formally created the 4516:Guerra del Cisplatina 4223:It's such an obvious 3241:by user Rafael Cruz. 3035:Requested move (2012) 2370:two most common names 1729:. And I have checked 1285:, etc, etc, etc... -- 627: 329:WikiProject Argentina 258: 143: 54:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 47:level-5 vital article 4849:Province since the ' 4692:regular verification 1460:you said it yourself 1125:" is translated as " 1048:Guerra da Cisplatina 838:" and in Argentina " 836:Guerra da Cisplatina 824:Argentina–Brazil War 4855:Cruzada Libertadora 4851:Cruzada libertadora 4682:After February 2018 4099:Zephianiah Kingsley 3711:Cisplatine Province 3472:raised by others. 3306:Uruguayan Civil War 3186:be called, but how 2090:"? Just tell me! -- 1727:Cisplatine province 1320:, and he certainly 1186:War of the Farrapos 781:Requested move 2010 737:Carmen de Patagones 448:WikiProject Uruguay 205:Grammar and style: 158:for B-class status: 4771:Oriental Province 4736:InternetArchiveBot 4687:InternetArchiveBot 4101:'s writings are a 3743:|Daniel Stowell}} 3411:Per Wiki Etiquette 1170:War of the Pacific 846:in English, here: 688:The article says " 629: 569:WikiProject Brazil 467:list of objectives 366:Argentine articles 260: 145: 112:list of open tasks 56:content assessment 4712: 4512:Guerra del Brasil 4071:original research 3415:Assume good faith 3347: 3130: 2955:comment added by 2939:comment added by 2602:Try to find some 1123:Guerra da Criméia 1046:" 585 times and " 1044:Guerra del Brasil 844:Guerra del Brasil 840:Guerra del Brasil 654: 653: 650: 649: 646: 645: 511: 510: 507: 506: 454:Uruguayan history 396: 395: 392: 391: 277: 276: 273: 272: 269: 268: 229: 228: 185:criterion not met 174:criterion not met 116:full instructions 16:(Redirected from 5009: 4746: 4737: 4710: 4709: 4688: 4598: 4564: 4524: 4495: 4490:Daniel Stowell, 4488: 4399: 4364: 4288: 4245: 4079: 4026: 3985: 3913: 3853: 3723: 3675: 3657: 3501: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3371: 3369: 3364: 3348: 3345: 3315: 3117: 3051: 2967: 2948: 2706: 2173: 2168: 1240:this name. Ex.: 1143:Guerra do Brasil 1131:Guerra da Coréia 797: 749: 668:lost, mind you. 598: 597: 594: 591: 588: 563: 558: 557: 556: 547: 540: 539: 534: 531: 520: 513: 483: 482: 481:Uruguay articles 479: 476: 473: 463:join the project 461:, where you can 442: 437: 436: 435: 426: 419: 418: 413: 405: 398: 368: 367: 364: 361: 358: 323: 321:Argentina portal 318: 317: 316: 307: 300: 299: 294: 286: 279: 245: 235: 219: 215: 214: 208: 204: 203: 197: 193: 192: 186: 182: 181: 175: 171: 170: 149: 132: 131: 128: 125: 122: 121:Military history 101: 94: 93: 88: 81:Military history 77: 70: 53: 44: 43: 36: 35: 27: 21: 5017: 5016: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5008: 5007: 5006: 4892: 4891: 4755: 4740: 4735: 4703: 4696:have permission 4686: 4650:this simple FaQ 4635: 4594: 4560: 4520: 4505: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4489: 4485: 4395: 4360: 4284: 4241: 4108:reliable source 4075: 4022: 4018:how you want it 3981: 3909: 3849: 3847:Best regards.-- 3719: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3653: 3497: 3379: 3377: 3367: 3360: 3358: 3344: 3341: 3311: 3172:technical terms 3047: 3037: 2957:190.183.127.107 2950: 2934: 2716: 2711: 2702: 2368:because of the 2171: 2166: 1184:, and even the 793: 783: 759: 743: 741:Pablo D. Flores 686: 662: 660:Opening heading 596:Brazil articles 595: 592: 589: 586: 585: 559: 554: 552: 532: 526: 497:High-importance 480: 477: 474: 471: 470: 438: 433: 431: 412:High‑importance 411: 382:High-importance 365: 362: 359: 356: 355: 319: 314: 312: 293:High‑importance 292: 243: 217: 212: 206: 201: 195: 190: 184: 179: 173: 168: 129: 126: 123: 120: 119: 83: 51: 41: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 5015: 5013: 5005: 5004: 4999: 4994: 4989: 4984: 4979: 4974: 4969: 4964: 4959: 4954: 4949: 4944: 4939: 4934: 4929: 4924: 4919: 4914: 4909: 4904: 4894: 4893: 4890: 4889: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4814: 4811: 4804: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4796: 4775:Banda Oriental 4754: 4751: 4730: 4729: 4722: 4675: 4674: 4666:Added archive 4664: 4656:Added archive 4642:Cisplatine War 4634: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4504: 4501: 4497: 4496: 4482: 4481: 4477: 4461: 4460: 4419: 4418: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4356: 4317: 4316: 4297: 4296: 4279: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4232: 4221: 4214: 4208: 4207: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4122: 4111: 4103:primary source 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4056: 4055: 4035: 4034: 3994: 3993: 3976: 3975: 3956: 3955: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3897: 3896: 3881: 3880: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3845: 3833:). Also, your 3809: 3805: 3801: 3798:Paraguayan War 3777: 3776: 3769: 3768: 3737: 3736: 3732: 3715: 3714: 3695:Cisplatine War 3666: 3665:Daniel Stowell 3663: 3661: 3660: 3650:requested move 3645: 3644: 3643: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3539:Google Scholar 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3460:Felipe Menegaz 3455:Cisplatine War 3447:Cisplatine War 3439:Cisplatine War 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3342: 3291: 3290: 3254: 3253: 3235:187.111.143.45 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3188:it is actually 3077:Cisplatine War 3074: 3055: 3054: 3044:requested move 3038: 3036: 3033: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2853:187.38.116.145 2848: 2823:187.38.116.145 2803: 2789:187.38.116.145 2785: 2757:187.38.116.145 2753: 2750: 2746: 2743: 2715: 2712: 2710: 2709: 2699:requested move 2693: 2692: 2674: 2673: 2656: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2608: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2577: 2569: 2562: 2561: 2539: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2179: 2178: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2088:Cisplatine War 2083:and Argentina 2057:Cisplatine War 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2004:Cisplatine War 1999:and Argentina 1968: 1951: 1943: 1915: 1914: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1855: 1841:other criteria 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1784:Cisplatine War 1779:and Argentina 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1710: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1638: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1623: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1564:Cisplatine War 1559:and Argentina 1519: 1512: 1511: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1418:Cisplatine War 1414: 1404: 1398: 1373: 1365: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1216:does not exist 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1162: 1161: 1139:Paraguayan War 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1059: 1052:11.100 results 1028: 1027: 851:Cisplatine War 828:Cisplatine War 822: 820: 801: 800: 790:requested move 784: 782: 779: 758: 755: 754: 753: 722:200.85.112.116 685: 682: 661: 658: 656: 652: 651: 648: 647: 644: 643: 640:Mid-importance 630: 620: 619: 612:Mid-importance 608: 602: 601: 599: 582:the discussion 578:related topics 565: 564: 548: 536: 535: 533:Mid‑importance 521: 509: 508: 505: 504: 493: 487: 486: 484: 444: 443: 440:Uruguay portal 427: 415: 414: 406: 394: 393: 390: 389: 378: 372: 371: 369: 340:Cisplatine War 325: 324: 308: 296: 295: 287: 275: 274: 271: 270: 267: 266: 261: 251: 250: 248: 246: 240: 239: 231: 230: 227: 226: 224: 222: 221: 220: 209: 198: 187: 176: 162: 161: 159: 146: 136: 135: 133: 102: 90: 89: 78: 66: 65: 59: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5014: 5003: 5000: 4998: 4995: 4993: 4990: 4988: 4985: 4983: 4980: 4978: 4975: 4973: 4970: 4968: 4965: 4963: 4960: 4958: 4955: 4953: 4950: 4948: 4945: 4943: 4940: 4938: 4935: 4933: 4930: 4928: 4925: 4923: 4920: 4918: 4915: 4913: 4910: 4908: 4905: 4903: 4900: 4899: 4897: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4841: 4837: 4832: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4822: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4809: 4805: 4802: 4797: 4794: 4793: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4752: 4750: 4749: 4744: 4739: 4738: 4727: 4723: 4720: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4707: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4683: 4678: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4638: 4632: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4602: 4599: 4597: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4568: 4565: 4563: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4528: 4525: 4523: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4502: 4493: 4487: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4425: 4422: 4416: 4412: 4411: 4406: 4403: 4400: 4398: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4377: 4376: 4371: 4368: 4365: 4363: 4357: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4329: 4326: 4322: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4295: 4292: 4289: 4287: 4280: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4260: 4252: 4249: 4246: 4244: 4238: 4233: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4219: 4215: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4173: 4169: 4167: 4162: 4158: 4153: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4130: 4123: 4121: 4116: 4112: 4109: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4086: 4083: 4080: 4078: 4072: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4036: 4033: 4030: 4027: 4025: 4019: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3992: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3978: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3957: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3920: 3917: 3914: 3912: 3905: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3882: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3866: 3865: 3860: 3857: 3854: 3852: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3810: 3806: 3802: 3799: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3775: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3751: 3749: 3744: 3742: 3734: 3733: 3731: 3730: 3727: 3724: 3722: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3676: 3674: 3664: 3659: 3656: 3651: 3646: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3619: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3609: 3605: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3502: 3500: 3495:). Regards.-- 3494: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3462: 3461: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3385: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3370: 3365: 3363: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3316: 3314: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3261:201.27.179.95 3258: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3053: 3050: 3045: 3040: 3039: 3034: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3013: 3011: 3005: 3003: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2946: 2942: 2941:98.112.227.47 2938: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2747: 2744: 2741: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2713: 2708: 2705: 2700: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2676: 2675: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2642: 2639: 2638: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2614: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2578: 2575: 2570: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2377: 2375: 2371: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2146: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2082: 2080: 2076: 2074: 2070: 2068: 2064: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1998: 1996: 1992: 1990: 1986: 1984: 1980: 1978: 1974: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1960:Uruguayan War 1957: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1837:WP:COMMONNAME 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1788: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1778: 1776: 1772: 1770: 1766: 1764: 1760: 1758: 1754: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723:google search 1720: 1716: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1552: 1550: 1546: 1544: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1402: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1371: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1083:WP:COMMONNAME 1080: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1057: 1056:2.110 results 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 974: 970: 969: 965: 961: 957: 954: 951: 948: 945: 942: 939: 936: 933: 930: 927: 924: 921: 918: 915: 912: 909: 906: 903: 900: 897: 894: 891: 888: 885: 882: 879: 876: 873: 870: 867: 864: 861: 859: 855: 852: 848: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 799: 796: 791: 786: 785: 780: 778: 777: 773: 769: 765: 756: 752: 747: 742: 738: 734: 729: 728: 727: 726: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 701: 699: 695: 691: 683: 681: 680: 677: 676: 671: 667: 659: 657: 641: 638:(assessed as 637: 636: 626: 622: 621: 617: 613: 607: 604: 603: 600: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 562: 561:Brazil portal 551: 549: 546: 542: 541: 537: 530: 525: 522: 519: 515: 502: 498: 492: 489: 488: 485: 468: 464: 460: 456: 455: 450: 449: 441: 430: 428: 425: 421: 420: 416: 410: 407: 404: 400: 387: 383: 377: 374: 373: 370: 353: 352: 347: 346: 341: 337: 336: 331: 330: 322: 311: 309: 306: 302: 301: 297: 291: 288: 285: 281: 265: 257: 253: 252: 249: 247: 242: 241: 236: 232: 225: 223: 218:criterion met 210: 207:criterion met 199: 196:criterion met 188: 177: 166: 165: 164: 163: 160: 157: 156: 150: 147: 142: 138: 137: 134: 117: 113: 109: 108: 103: 100: 96: 95: 91: 87: 86:South America 82: 79: 76: 72: 67: 63: 57: 49: 48: 38: 34: 29: 28: 19: 4854: 4807: 4770: 4766: 4758: 4756: 4734: 4731: 4706:source check 4685: 4679: 4676: 4639: 4636: 4611:Cambalachero 4595: 4561: 4521: 4515: 4511: 4506: 4491: 4486: 4478: 4466:187.36.81.70 4462: 4450:Cambalachero 4434:187.36.81.70 4426: 4423: 4420: 4396: 4381:187.36.81.70 4361: 4340:187.36.81.70 4337: 4330: 4327: 4324: 4320: 4318: 4302:187.36.81.70 4298: 4285: 4265:187.36.81.70 4261: 4257: 4242: 4236: 4217: 4197:Cambalachero 4182:187.36.81.70 4174: 4170: 4164: 4160: 4157:Cambalachero 4154: 4150: 4128: 4125: 4118: 4076: 4073:. Regards.-- 4066: 4062: 4045:187.36.81.70 4041:Cambalachero 4023: 4017: 4003:187.36.81.70 3999:Cambalachero 3995: 3982: 3965:187.36.81.70 3961:Cambalachero 3945:187.36.81.70 3929:Cambalachero 3925: 3910: 3903: 3886:187.36.81.70 3870:187.36.81.70 3850: 3839:your opinion 3838: 3827:To IP editor 3826: 3782:187.36.81.70 3778: 3774: 3756: 3755: 3752: 3745: 3741:adversaries. 3739: 3738: 3720: 3716: 3690: 3686: 3684: 3672: 3668: 3654: 3647: 3623:Cambalachero 3617: 3603: 3602: 3576: 3573:outright lie 3572: 3538: 3517:Cambalachero 3498: 3468: 3467: 3459: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3429: 3406: 3405: 3389:Cambalachero 3383: 3361: 3329: 3325: 3324: 3312: 3297: 3293: 3292: 3280:Cambalachero 3256: 3255: 3243:Cambalachero 3211: 3210: 3196:Cambalachero 3187: 3183: 3179: 3141: 3140:. There was 3137: 3133: 3132: 3120:Cambalachero 3116: 3105:Cambalachero 3096: 3094: 3083:– There are 3075: 3058: 3056: 3048: 3041: 3014: 3006: 2998: 2951:— Preceding 2931: 2770: 2739: 2717: 2703: 2696: 2677: 2658: 2640: 2613:Port Stanley 2603: 2542: 2519: 2514: 2513: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2257: 2256:Not for the 2224: 2220: 2144: 2143: 2087: 2078: 2072: 2066: 2060: 2056: 2003: 1994: 1988: 1982: 1976: 1972: 1921: 1917: 1916: 1884: 1883: 1783: 1774: 1768: 1762: 1756: 1734: 1730: 1714: 1641: 1585: 1584: 1563: 1554: 1548: 1542: 1536: 1496: 1467: 1417: 1410: 1394: 1369: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1146: 1142: 1130: 1122: 1094: 1093: 1078: 1077: 1039: 1012: 1008: 972: 971: 857: 850: 843: 839: 835: 821: 804: 802: 794: 787: 763: 760: 717: 713: 709: 705: 702: 697: 693: 689: 687: 673: 665: 663: 655: 633: 611: 567: 496: 459:project page 452: 446: 381: 350: 344: 333: 327: 153: 105: 62:WikiProjects 45: 4229:WP:NOTTRUTH 4178:Platine War 4134:Kansas Bear 3904:threatening 3443:Platine War 3302:Platine War 3216:Rafael Cruz 3150:Platine War 2935:—Preceding 1956:Platine War 1947:Platine War 1620:Platine War 1174:War of 1812 1127:Crimean War 809:Vegaswikian 670:User:Ejrrjs 666:and Uruguay 194:Structure: 52:Start-class 4896:Categories 4859:ULIFOX 3XX 4831:ULIFOX 3XX 4779:ULIFOX 3XX 4743:Report bug 4596:MarshalN20 4580:EdJohnston 4562:MarshalN20 4546:EdJohnston 4535:See above 4522:MarshalN20 4479:References 4397:MarshalN20 4362:MarshalN20 4286:MarshalN20 4243:MarshalN20 4124:As such, " 4077:MarshalN20 4024:MarshalN20 3983:MarshalN20 3911:MarshalN20 3907:Regards.-- 3851:MarshalN20 3835:ad hominem 3721:MarshalN20 3717:Regards.-- 3673:MarshalN20 3499:MarshalN20 3313:MarshalN20 3233:by the IP 3231:formulated 3138:misleading 2775:Paulista01 2646:Paulista01 2150:Boneyard90 1922:Cisplatine 1889:Spongie555 1719:John Lynch 1135:Korean War 1036:the policy 805:page moved 465:and see a 351:to do list 4777:shows it 4726:this tool 4719:this tool 3638:• Astynax 3608:• Astynax 3493:3170 hits 3449:out-tops 3418:Judicatus 3178:and not " 3059:not moved 3022:Ajuricaba 2983:Grenzer22 2907:MBelgrano 2808:MBelgrano 2724:MBelgrano 2622:MBelgrano 2604:Uruguayan 2525:MBelgrano 2520:precisely 2266:MBelgrano 2187:MBelgrano 2123:MBelgrano 2079:Argentina 1995:Argentina 1904:MBelgrano 1863:MBelgrano 1845:MBelgrano 1775:Argentina 1739:MBelgrano 1715:it is not 1606:MBelgrano 1555:Argentina 1523:MBelgrano 1472:MBelgrano 1381:MBelgrano 1190:MBelgrano 1108:MBelgrano 1063:MBelgrano 994:MBelgrano 858:Examples: 768:Jorge6207 733:Pergolini 706:caudillos 698:Argentina 357:Argentina 335:Argentina 290:Argentina 50:is rated 4808:Province 4759:de facto 4732:Cheers.— 4300:subject. 4063:military 3780:annexed. 3541:prefers 3489:829 hits 3441:and the 3063:Favonian 2953:unsigned 2937:unsigned 2663:Kotniski 2574:Mercosur 2551:Hchc2009 1806:Hchc2009 1731:directly 1681:Hchc2009 1651:Hchc2009 1590:Hchc2009 1087:Kanguole 988:to just 853:" (See: 718:one more 155:criteria 4873:Torimem 4836:Torimem 4817:Torimem 4646:my edit 3703:Uruguay 3604:Oppose. 3586:LaTeeDa 3474:LaTeeDa 3469:Oppose. 3431:Oppose. 3334:WP:DASH 3326:Oppose. 3294:Neutral 3239:0 edits 2678:Support 2659:Support 2641:Support 2515:Comment 2145:Support 1950:before. 1942:prefer. 1885:Support 1642:believe 1586:Support 1104:results 1095:Comment 1079:Support 978:551.000 973:Oppose: 764:gaúchos 694:part of 614:on the 529:History 499:on the 472:Uruguay 409:Uruguay 384:on the 345:sign up 4592:Yes.-- 3693:, the 3368:(talk) 3346:oetica 3338:WP:MOS 3328:But I 3257:Oppose 3212:Oppose 3134:Oppose 2714:Result 2682:Int21h 2227:here: 1918:Oppose 1409:says " 1370:exists 739:... -- 710:thanks 587:Brazil 574:Brazil 524:Brazil 58:scale. 4464:best. 4225:WP:OR 3831:WP:OR 3814:Lecen 3545:over 3537:That 3336:, at 3330:might 3154:Lecen 3085:3.160 2868:Lecen 2838:Lecen 2582:Lecen 2487:Lecen 2444:IANVS 2406:Lecen 2334:IANVS 2300:Lecen 2258:whole 2232:Lecen 2221:P.S.: 2092:Lecen 2031:IANVS 2008:Lecen 2006:"? -- 1973:P.S.: 1926:IANVS 1835:one. 1666:Lecen 1568:Lecen 1566:"? -- 1501:Lecen 1422:Lecen 1420:". -- 1287:Lecen 1151:Lecen 1149:". -- 1017:Lecen 986:4.350 982:2.370 960:Lecen 675:What? 672:says 342:, or 39:This 4877:talk 4863:talk 4840:talk 4821:talk 4783:talk 4615:talk 4584:talk 4550:talk 4470:talk 4454:talk 4438:talk 4385:talk 4344:talk 4306:talk 4269:talk 4201:talk 4186:talk 4138:talk 4132:" -- 4113:Per 4067:your 4049:talk 4007:talk 3969:talk 3949:talk 3943:all. 3933:talk 3890:talk 3874:talk 3818:talk 3786:talk 3691:i.e. 3627:talk 3590:talk 3521:talk 3478:talk 3422:talk 3393:talk 3384:Done 3362:Tony 3298:vast 3284:talk 3265:talk 3247:talk 3220:talk 3200:talk 3158:talk 3124:talk 3109:talk 3067:talk 3026:talk 3012:). 2987:talk 2961:talk 2945:talk 2911:talk 2872:talk 2857:talk 2842:talk 2827:talk 2812:talk 2793:talk 2779:talk 2761:talk 2728:talk 2686:talk 2667:talk 2650:talk 2626:talk 2618:here 2586:talk 2576:too. 2555:talk 2529:talk 2491:talk 2448:talk 2410:talk 2304:talk 2270:talk 2236:talk 2191:talk 2154:talk 2127:talk 2096:talk 2035:talk 2012:talk 1962:and 1930:talk 1908:talk 1893:talk 1867:talk 1849:talk 1810:talk 1743:talk 1685:talk 1670:talk 1655:talk 1610:talk 1594:talk 1572:talk 1527:talk 1505:talk 1476:talk 1464:here 1426:talk 1385:talk 1362:here 1358:here 1354:here 1350:here 1346:here 1342:here 1338:here 1334:here 1330:here 1326:here 1322:uses 1291:talk 1194:talk 1155:talk 1112:talk 1067:talk 1021:talk 998:talk 964:talk 813:talk 772:talk 746:Talk 576:and 491:High 376:High 4700:RfC 4670:to 4660:to 4117:, " 3652:. 3618:not 3554:to 3552:142 3276:see 3184:may 3176:Dog 3097:not 3089:802 2740:and 2701:. 2167:Joe 1786:"? 1735:not 1212:not 1099:296 1009:not 990:343 606:Mid 4898:: 4879:) 4865:) 4842:) 4823:) 4785:) 4713:. 4708:}} 4704:{{ 4617:) 4600:| 4586:) 4566:| 4552:) 4526:| 4472:) 4456:) 4440:) 4417:): 4401:| 4387:) 4366:| 4346:) 4308:) 4290:| 4271:) 4247:| 4220:". 4203:) 4188:) 4168:. 4163:. 4140:) 4081:| 4051:) 4028:| 4009:) 3987:| 3971:) 3951:) 3935:) 3915:| 3892:) 3876:) 3855:| 3820:) 3788:) 3725:| 3677:| 3629:) 3592:) 3556:49 3523:) 3503:| 3480:) 3457:. 3424:) 3395:) 3340:. 3317:| 3286:) 3267:) 3249:) 3222:) 3202:) 3160:) 3142:no 3126:) 3111:) 3101:98 3079:→ 3069:) 3061:. 3046:. 3028:) 3004:. 2989:) 2963:) 2913:) 2874:) 2866:-- 2859:) 2844:) 2829:) 2814:) 2795:) 2781:) 2763:) 2730:) 2688:) 2669:) 2652:) 2628:) 2588:) 2557:) 2543:is 2531:) 2493:) 2485:-- 2450:) 2412:) 2376:). 2340:!! 2306:) 2272:) 2238:) 2193:) 2156:) 2129:) 2098:) 2077:, 2065:, 2037:) 2029:-- 2014:) 1993:, 1981:, 1958:, 1932:) 1910:) 1895:) 1869:) 1851:) 1812:) 1773:, 1761:, 1745:) 1687:) 1672:) 1657:) 1640:I 1612:) 1596:) 1574:) 1553:, 1541:, 1529:) 1507:) 1478:) 1468:is 1428:) 1387:) 1364:). 1356:, 1352:, 1348:, 1344:, 1340:, 1336:, 1332:, 1328:, 1293:) 1282:, 1279:, 1276:, 1273:, 1270:, 1267:, 1264:, 1261:, 1258:, 1255:, 1252:, 1249:, 1246:, 1243:, 1220:no 1196:) 1180:, 1176:, 1172:, 1157:) 1114:) 1069:) 1023:) 1000:) 966:) 955:, 952:, 949:, 946:, 943:, 940:, 937:, 934:, 931:, 928:, 925:, 922:, 919:, 916:, 913:, 910:, 907:, 904:, 901:, 898:, 895:, 892:, 889:, 886:, 883:, 880:, 877:, 874:, 871:, 868:, 865:, 862:, 826:→ 815:) 807:. 792:. 774:) 642:). 527:: 244:/ 84:: 4875:( 4861:( 4838:( 4829:@ 4819:( 4781:( 4745:) 4741:( 4728:. 4721:. 4613:( 4582:( 4548:( 4468:( 4452:( 4436:( 4432:. 4383:( 4342:( 4304:( 4267:( 4199:( 4184:( 4136:( 4110:. 4047:( 4043:. 4005:( 3967:( 3947:( 3931:( 3888:( 3872:( 3816:( 3784:( 3625:( 3588:( 3519:( 3476:( 3420:( 3391:( 3343:N 3282:( 3263:( 3245:( 3218:( 3198:( 3156:( 3122:( 3107:( 3065:( 3024:( 2985:( 2959:( 2943:( 2909:( 2870:( 2855:( 2851:- 2840:( 2825:( 2810:( 2791:( 2777:( 2759:( 2755:- 2726:( 2684:( 2665:( 2648:( 2624:( 2584:( 2553:( 2527:( 2489:( 2446:( 2408:( 2378:" 2302:( 2268:( 2234:( 2189:( 2172:N 2152:( 2125:( 2094:( 2071:, 2033:( 2010:( 1987:, 1928:( 1906:( 1891:( 1865:( 1847:( 1808:( 1767:, 1741:( 1683:( 1668:( 1653:( 1608:( 1592:( 1570:( 1547:, 1525:( 1503:( 1474:( 1424:( 1383:( 1372:. 1289:( 1192:( 1153:( 1121:" 1110:( 1065:( 1019:( 996:( 962:( 811:( 770:( 748:) 744:( 618:. 503:. 469:. 388:. 354:. 118:. 64:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index