Talk:Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata

Point of view check
The article reads like it was written by an Argentine nationalist. It starts OK with:

"It was imposed in 1845 to support the Colorado Party in the Uruguayan Civil War and closed Buenos Aires to naval commerce."

But then goes off into speculation:

Britain did not have great interests at stake in Buenos Aires. The purpose of the war was to foster the Entente cordiale with France, so as to make possible later joint military operations elsewhere, such as the Opium War or the protection of the independence of the Republic of Texas. The British interests in South America grew when Texas was finally annexed by the United States. etc. etc.

It fails to describe fully any of the actions of the Argentine side that might have provoked the blockade.

It describes a battle that was actually lost by Argentina as if it were a victory. This reads like nationalist propaganda and must be bias.86.4.27.128 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not speculation, it's all in the references. Do you deny the existence of the first Entente cordiale or what? All the Argentine actions that led to this war are detailed at "Antecedents" and "Beginning of armed actions". As for the battle, t is just detailed. Let me cite: "By the end of the day, all batteries were destroyed, and the cannons were destroyed or taken as trophies. 250 Argentine soldiers died, and 400 were injured. The Anglo-French fleet stayed 40 days in Obligado, making repairs." Does that sound "as if it was a victory"? Have in mind that, although the battle of Vuelta de Obligado was an Argentine defeat, the battle of Quebracho was an Argentine victory, leading to the almost complete destruction of the convoy. That's what you found at the end of "Consequences of Obligado". Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion will be held at User talk:86.4.27.128, as this topic was raised by this user at several pages at once. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the text is based on ideologically motivated works by members of the nationalist "Revisionist" movement in Argentinean Historiography. And Rosas is a very important piece in their ideological constellation. it would be nice to give more modern points of view some space in these articles. - A reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:9504:7B33:D973:7310:557A:AC54 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Note on references
Greetings, this is a pretty good article. I reviewed the references quick and found two issues. The websites should use cite web, and De Leon is probably not reliable – Lulu is a vanity publisher, and its books rarely pass WP:SPS. With regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The info was already in the first book I used, and it was among the details I was going to deal with at a later time. I arranged the references to point this MBelgrano (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Lulu is not a "vanity press" in the usual perjorative sense, since it is used by established authors to reprint earlier work, as well by otheres to self-publish new material. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Entente Cordiale
That agreement was signed 60 years after the event, so I don't think it could be fostering that - is there a different agreement being referenced here? Slac speak up! 05:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The one from 1904 is the second and most known, but the second entente cordiale, not the first. Cambalachero (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)