Talk:History of Paraguay

Source
This article has been wholly copied from http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/paraguay.html. The External Link is not the proper way to cite the source. Furthermore, the original article at the site above carries copyright notice, but perhaps the authors are one and the same.


 * I went to that website and it seems the articles there are taken directly from the US State Department, so it's public domain. The problem, however, lies with this article being basically the history of a country as written by the government of a foreign country, and that can't be accepted on Wikipedia. Red Star


 * Morever this article is missing any reference to what happened after its independence and before the 20th century, in particular the war with other Latin American states in 1860s(Under the wikipedia entry War_of_the_Triple_Alliance). I will keep note of this page and slowly add to it. Laforet 00:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Guaraní
That I know Guaraní was not originally spoken in Paraguay, it was brought there by Jesuits. Can anyone check?

Guarani was not a language brought by the Jesuits. It was a language spoken by the native indigenous population for hundreds of years before the spanish arrived. Currently, more than 90% of the population speaks Guarani and Spanish. - Mariscal8

The Jesuits learned Guarani, the lingua franca of an important number of native tribes across the region, in order to facilitate their missionary efforts. Thus Guarani became a protected language, and this move contributed in no small degree to its survival until today. Aldo L (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jesuits did create a writing system for Guarani, which did not exist prior to their arrival. Dardanelle (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

anthropology
cant ANYONE do some anthropological research, geez! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.51.67 (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

1947 civil war
There is NOTHING on this!

Jesuit-organized communist "republic"?
The "communisme" article in the French "Dictionnaire Encyclopedique" (Larousse-Bordas, 2000) talks, in his "History" part, about the application of the communist principles in Paraguay by the Jesuits between 1612 and 1767. Can someone point me to some further reading on the subject?

I'm really puzzled, I never thought the Jesuits could be in some way attached to common property principles. Dpotop 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Talking about 'communist principles' is pointless, especially regarding 17th century imperialistic religious orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The missions were essentially communist in action, but since communism is also an ideology created in the 19th century, they weren't Communists. All property was collectively owned and the missions were run as collective units. Private property was forbidden. However the missions were actually theocratic totalitarian communes, quite different from Marx's atheistic Communism. Dardanelle (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Unverified points of view
This article is riddled with points of view, hardly any of which are substantiated. Independent citations are needed to justify the many claims made, and it needs a complete rewrite from top to bottom. Approximately 90 per cent of the article is uncited, and any editor would be quite justified in removing those parts, leaving just a few lines from the last section remaining. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Wikipedia's efficacy depends on removing this type of entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking
Here is some useful advice from WP:OVERLINK:
 * What generally should be linked
 * In general, links should be created to:
 * relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully (see the example below). This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question.
 * articles with relevant information, for example: "see Fourier series for relevant background".
 * articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions, unless they are defined in the article – but always consider providing a concise definition instead of or in addition to a link to another article. If a technical or slang term doesn't have its own article, an interwiki link to Wiktionary may be the most appropriate.
 * proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers.
 * What generally should not be linked
 * Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, and dates.
 * An example article
 * For example, in the article on supply and demand:
 * almost certainly link "microeconomics" and "general equilibrium theory", as these are technical terms that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight;
 * consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic.
 * do not link to the "United States", because that is an article on a very broad topic with no direct connection to supply and demand.
 * definitely do not link "potato", because it is a common term with no particular relationship to the article on supply and demand, beyond its arbitrary use as an example of traded goods in that article.
 * Make sure that the links are directed to the correct articles: in this example, you should link "good (economics)", not good. :Many common dictionary words link to disambiguation pages.
 * Repeated links
 * In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:
 * where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.
 * where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content.
 * tables, as each row should stand on its own.

I hope this explains why I have removed so many links form this article.
 * I think you've removed some important links. Execution, for one, is an important term. Cathedral and convent are possibly terms that need linking. I am confused why you removed the descriptive links in the lead - it's wrong to assume every reader will understand what a dictatorship is or what an economy is. Good linking is an art form :) I think you're right I went OTT on some of them (cattle... why did I link that :P) but it is possible to do too few. I'm going to replace quite a lot of the ones you cut. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I undid most of the removals then went through and re-edited in some of your changes. It also gave me the opportunity to fix some links I had made to disambiguation pages :) Remember that readers may not have as wide an understanding as yourself of certain terms; for example removing links to independence, ethnic, estuary, drought etc. are all fairly specific terms that might not be understood - not every link has to be directly related to this article. While MOSLINK suggests avoiding country links, in this case it is important because this is an article about a countries history and it is important to get links to other countries related to Paraguay's history so readers can work outwards if need be. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 11:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are just some of the links that you have re-added to common terms with no particular relationship to the article:
 * city independence revolt empire rebellion poverty poverty monarchy lawyer murder obese railroad sailor jungle occupation coast climate monument chapel newspaper loan immigrant hospital "airplane crash" coalition alliance sovereignty embassy censorship Christian scandal legislature

The point of WP:OVERLINK is that these are "terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of... religions... common professions, common units of measurement...." These words do not have meanings in this article that are different from the usual English language meanings, or particular relevance here beyond what those words means. These are not technical terms, jargon or slang. They are everyday English words. And yes, the average reader will understand what dictatorship is, or an economy or a newspaper. If you disagree with WP:OVERLINK, you can propose changes to it on that guideline's talk page, but I strongly urge you not to oppose it by picking random articles and linking plain English words.

Some more specific examples: I encourage you to re-read WP:OVERLINK and take a serious look at these words again. I think it may also be useful to ask other editors to comment on this disagreement. Ground Zero | t 13:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cathedral, convent, independence, ethnic, drought - ordinary English words
 * estuary - less common, but it was already linked once nearby, and did not warrant a repeat
 * Country names -- I removed repeated links, but left in the first instance
 * I've always disagreed quite strongly with such a blanket guideline - when linking it is best to use common sense. "Independence" and "ethnic" are inarguably important words to this topic, it makes logical sense to provide links to these topics for expansion purposes. Cathedral, a reasonable point exists there, convent? definitely not, in my experience a large number of people do not know what a convent is (being a somewhat historical thing now). Ironically that is one of the words I almost always link w/o fail. And yes, the average reader will understand what dictatorship is, or an economy or a newspaper. - I'm afraid you are pretty incorrect (well, maybe apart from newspaper), especially on some of the terms highlighted. Besides, when I wikify I try to link for about 12-15 year old readers, generally speaking anyone "new" to a topic has about that topic comprehension level. See, I could understand, and might support the removal of links to the Catholic church, but not to dictator etc. As I mentioned; good linking is an artfom, OVERLINK is a guideline to help us avoid overlinked articles, it is not a carte-blanche for having as few links as possible (which is how I usually see people interpreting it). (BTW to highlight the difficulty in interpreting this, I would argue that a lot more people will know about Adolf Hitler than know what a convent is :) I linked both, because it never hurts to build the web of links, but arguably Hitler's link has minimal relevance) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking the words you highlight (leaving out the ones you have a point with):
 * revolt empire rebellion monarchy coalition alliance sovereignty legislature immigrant occupation  - all extremely relevant terms to this article, not necessarily widely known (especially outside the US)
 * climate - in the context it was unexplained, not usually a widely understood term (even in light of modern climate change fun)
 * lawyer murder obese jungle coast climate monument chapel loan scandal - meh... most of these were in lightly linked sections and helped provide comprehension IMO
 * "airplane crash" an interesting article, definitely worth a link
 * poverty embassy censorship railroad sailor  - marginal words, but usually worth a link. Particularly censorship which is an wide topic
 * I'd probably not argue to see some of those gone. But it is always best to make those removals in steps to they are easier to take account of :) OVERLINK is a useful guideline but when linking or de-linking you must take care; the point is to aid comprehension of the text and to provide pathways to other material of interest or relevance --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 14:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to having others weigh in on this discussion. I don't think that you and I are going to see eye to eye on this. I do not understand how you think that "revolt empire rebellion monarchy coalition alliance sovereignty legislature immigrant occupation" are "not necessarily widely known (especially outside the US)". More to the point, the meanings they have in this context are their common English language meanings. These words would be easily understood by any reasonably educated native English speaker or moderately proficient non-native speaker. These are not difficult concepts, or being used differently in this article. Same for "climate poverty embassy censorship railroad sailor lawyer murder obese jungle coast climate monument chapel loan scandal". "Airplane crash" may well be an interesting article, but airplane crashes are not an unusually important part of Paraguayan history. The concept is explained in the phrase - it is the crash of an airplane. I think everyone will get that without clarification. Ground Zero | t 14:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking the idea of OVERLINKING way too literally, as indeed itself says - this is a guidline to which common sense must be applied. But, yes, I would like to see others weigh in. Those terms you say are common words are directly relevant to comprehension of the article, they relate to a general understanding of the text. Do you see what I am saying from the perspective of comparing the Hitler link to these terms? there is generally no loss to linking, the idea of overlinking is to avoid distracting readers. Providing links to relevant expansion topics is important to building the "web of links". If we take your literal interpretation very few articles would ever link to, say, "alliance" :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 14:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are dismissing WP:OVERLINK without good reason. Take a look at what generally should be linked and what should not be linked. I think there is merit in more linking in the article -- I do not argue for as little linking as possible, and you will see that I added some links and made some links more precise. The linking should be to things that are not just dictionary definitions. "Alliance" should be linked from articles about alliances, like NATO or the Warsaw Pact, but should not be linked just in case someone doesn't know what "alliance" means. You may disagree with blanket guidelines like WP:OVERLINK as much as you want, but this is something that has been developed and adopted by the Wikipedia community. It is, as you say, a guideline, and there can always be exceptions to it, but that it is a guideline is not a basis for dispensing of it altogether. It is something that the community has adopted. The difference between "Adolf Hitler" and "convent" is that in reading an article about history, a reader is more likely to want to follow a link through to read about an important person in history like Adolf Hitler than to want to read a definition about convents. Ground Zero | t 15:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have invited other editors with an interest in linking to join the discussion here. Ground Zero | t 15:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The difference between "Adolf Hitler" and "convent" is that in reading an article about history, a reader is more likely to want to follow a link through to read about an important person in history like Adolf Hitler than to want to read a definition about convents. I entirely disagree here, the article about Adolf Hitler has as much direct relevance to this article as convent. If not less. However I would argue that convent is by far the lesser known term and linking it helps cohesion. As does linking to Hitler. OVERLINK is about avoiding links that do not epxand on the context. In a sentence that says "Paraguay claimed their independence" it is useful to link to the article about independence - firstly to build a useful web of links and secondly to give context to the use of the word. I am not, I contend, dismissing OVERLINK, I think you are misunderstanding it as arguing that all "dictionary term" links should be summarily removed, whereas I of the understanding that the aim of linking is to get good solid links to allow expansion onto other topics without being frivolous. (sorry about the crankiness :) I'm revising today...) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced a bunch of definitional links with links that I think provide much more useful web-building for the reader, e.g., links to articles about Paraguay or South America, rather than to generalities. Please take a look. Ground Zero | t 15:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks great to me! --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 16:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, all the links removed in this edit were done so properly and skilfully, without detriment to the understanding of the article. All were words were apparently linked to provide dictionary definitions; none have any special meaning in the context of the article. The attempted relinkings lacked imagination, as most are everyday words. None of the words relinked –culture, colonial, poverty, slavery, sailor, lawyer, etc – have any contextual value at all, and they would have been better linked to Wiktionary (although I am not suggesting that even this is necessary or desirable). As proof that more valuable contextual ones were available but weren't even attempted, these relinkings have more specific subjects, and thus succeed in adding value. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw a note on WP Talk:MOS (linking) and thought I’d take a peek at the article’s edit history. First, I’d like to suggest that links be better aliased so the reader can better anticipate what they will be taken to. Examine this edit (recent ∆):

…


 * That results in this:

The country’s colonial history was one of general calm…


 * The reader would rightly expect to be taken to a generic article on colonialism and not an article focused upon Spanish colonialism. There are any number of ways to have revised that sentence, but one would be…

Paraguay’s colonial history was one of general calm…


 * Such aliasing enables the reader to know they will be taken to a highly relevant, germane article.


 * Generally, the modern (last three years) principle is that only those links that will enhance a reader’s understanding of the subject matter of that particular article should be linked.


 * In technical writing, one always must use some judgement as to who the likely readership is; one should target the middle of the bell curve. Unless the article is directed to children or is on a specialized scientific or mathematical topic directed to a specialized readership, most of Wikipedia’s articles are written for a general readership and the rule of thumb is to make Flesch Reading Ease at around 50–70%. (Notice how I added only a valuable link here?) I find that scientific articles on which I’ve been active on for a long time and which have had a great deal of community input (errors are fixed and confusing language clarified), tend to end up at the 12th-grade level and at 50th percentile for ease.


 * Along with reading ease comes the principle of linking only those terms that add value for our target readership. It is best to not link the first occurrence of “cities” (as the article currently does) because the target audience 1) knows what a city is, and 2) knows such an article exists on Wikipedia. The reaction we want to induce from our readership is “Cool, it’s nice to know they have such a highly relevant article related to and expanding upon this subject matter”. So if there is an article on Paraguayan cities, add a link for that. And be sure to alias it in a way so the reader can recognize its focused and germane nature. Too many of our readers are accustomed to over-linked articles containing absurdly generic links that add no value. So if you have a germane and relevant link, ensure it is easy for the reader to recognize it as such.


 * Overall, I’d say the article is currently very poorly linked. Some links are needless generic terms (like “cities”). Still others like  have unintentionally been aliased in a way that makes the reader unlikely to recognize their highly targeted and germane nature. The article needs work.


 * P.S. Remember too, our articles usually feature a “See also” section. Use it. Sometimes an article like “List of cities in Paraguay” best belongs there. BTW, this post had a Flesch Reading Ease of 52.4% and a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.4. I provided links appropriate for the target audience. Greg L (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair point on pipe-linking. I've made some further changes. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. A quick scan of your most recent edits (∆ here), shows good, thoughtful work that greatly improves the article. I do still see some links to common terms that add no understanding to this subject matter, like the generic word “cities” (who doesn’t know what that is?). Thanks for your contributions. Greg L (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Greg, point made. I fundamentally disagree (with Ground Zero) that linking to interesting but-not-unique terms is a bad thing (although as they are pointed out some of my linking is idiotic : because it helps majorly with comprehension and helps build the web of links (for example; it strikes me a reader is much more likely, in this article, to want to find out about the concepts of independence, sovereignty etc. than any of the cities/locations). On the other hand you make a really solid point about making links specific... much of the original linking was done as part of this months Wikification drive and, well, it probably did not get as much attention as it should have. Lesson learned. I have started to massage some of the existing links, see what you think --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 18:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You write of “helps build the web of links” as if that is a good objective unto itself. I think the paramount objective is to achieve a pleasant reading article that doesn’t make our readers’ eyes glaze over with endless seas of blue links. Too many links wastes readers’ time to click on the things when the good ones are poorly aliased so they look like generic articles of little-to-no interest to the reader interested in a specific subject, and the generic links of little-to-no interest to the average reader are… just that. The trend of all the different-language Wikipedias since 2006 has been an inexorable reduction in the percentage of words linked per article precisely because the community realized that just because an article can be linked to doesn’t mean it helps the reader quickly understand the subject at hand. The article really suffers from a wide variety of shortcomings right now. With 17,259 words in the body text alone and far too few graphics placed far down into the article, it is tedious and boring. The article is ginormous. When one starts to edit it, one is met with automated advise that reads “This page is 119 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.” That advise should have been heeded quite some time ago. Not only should this article be trimmed and/or split up into other articles, it could really benefit from greater effort adding decorative and interesting graphics to spruce it up. It has clearly suffered from “too many cooks in the kitchen” and insufficient WP:Boldness by a shepherding editor with a keen eye on the big picture. A dry, over-linked, bloated article suffering from edit-wars is the result. Greg L (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * so they look like generic articles of little-to-no interest to the reader interested in a specific subject, the fallacy is imagining that a reader of this article is purely and only interested in the topic of Paraguayan history. In a history article, such as this, I argue that the main focus is probably going to be on socio-political ideas. The topic of independence is 100% something of interest. It is a relevant topic and the term may need flashing out for full understanding of the article. I contend the article is pretty well linked (even sparsely toward the end when there are a lot less new place names) BUT the main problem, as you say, is the length and the writing. It is a hard read and appears to have been largely based off a state dept. text. Some of it seems to have been split out into other articles but this has not been cut in tandem :( Am working on that, though, but still collecting sources (my library is short on this topic ;)) Splitting this article is a couple of weeks editing I think, which may be why no one has bothered :) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 20:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the reader wants to switch off to another topic, he/she can use the"search" function. That is what it is there for. There is no particular reason to provide someone reading a specific article like "History of Paraguay" a link to conceptual topic like "independence" just because the word appears in the article. Ground Zero | t 21:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I’m talking about unnecessary links to overly generic articles that add no value to the article, I’m talking about stuff like “…and the distance of its capital from other new cities on the continent virtually ensured…”. Or soldier or poverty. Linking such generic terms starts turning articles into general-purpose dictionaries. I see that “city” one was fixed shortly after I mentioned it. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst I understand the wish to link to 'independence', I feel in all likelihood, few who arrive at this article would be educated by going to 'independence'. However, a link to Spanish_American_wars_of_independence, or its subsection Independence_consolidated.2C_1820-1825, suitably aliased either in the body of the article, or the 'See also' section, would created greater educative value. Anyone wanting to learn about the general term is capable of typing that in the search box. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Errant, let us hope that every WP has some interest to readers. That is no reason to link ordinary English words without a very good reason. A few of the links you contest might have survived as more specific ones, but then the issue is "will the reader know this—is the pipe deceptively broad?" If so, the "See also" section is the best place, unpiped. Please remember the pillar (not policy or guideline, but pillar): WP is not a dictionary. Above all, what is missing here is an awareness that low-value links dilute the surrounding high-value links. Tony   (talk)  01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, I would point out that WP:NOTDICTIONARY (which is what the pillar is talking about) is unrelated to links :) @Ohconfucius, I would consider such a link (relating to independence) 100% useless to any readers. It barely mentions Paraguay and is not help to understanding the concept of independence. It is, I fear, a fallacy to imagine that people will always use the search function, for relevant terms we should be linking them in the body. For example, we now have Voltaire linked (not that I disagree, good link). MOSLINK says Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?", I am confused how it is possible that you can say a reader is more likely to read about Voltaire than dictatorship - I think there is a worrying misunderstanding of MOSLINK! --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 09:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've simplified some of the language (to avoid now unlinked words that might mean little to readers) and added some more Wiktionary links. I also removed Adolf Hitler per WP:LINKING because it has little or no relevance and most people will know who he is. I added a link to monopoly at Wiktionary, I think that it is an economic term that would not be widely known/understood (in my experience anyway). But in this case I think the Wiktionary page is less than useless in helping to understand... how do we feel about making that a WP link? --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Made some more changes; let me know if I am on the right path :) (still disagree with the premise but have to work within the consensus, and I want to make sure I am not going too far :)) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 10:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero understands the premise, and agrees with the premise. You, Errant, understand the premise, disagree with the premise, but (unlike many editors on Wikipedia) understand the need to follow the consensus. That takes a big man. I’m sure you two can work things out from hereon. In the mean time, there are some bigger fish to fry than the minnow that is linking. The article is far too big. I suggest that a natural point at which to bifurcate the article would be pre-independence and post-independence (which is currently half way down the article). Remember too that a well-done photograph up in the lede—even if it is mostly decorative—goes a long way towards making an article look more inviting, professional and attractive. Greg L (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the linking in this article is now greatly improved as a result of the efforts of a number of editors, including tmorton166. I particularly respect that s/he disagrees but accepts the consensus. Speaking from experince, I know that that is a bitter pill to swallow. Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Too many links create what specific problems? I suppose it's a small problem if there are so many links that the blue type and underlining are distracting, but outside of stylistic concern, is there really a problem with having too many links that affects an entry's usefulness? On the other hand, there is a search bar at the top of every Wikipedia entry, if someone doesn't know what a convent is they can type it in there themselves, or use one of many search engines or online dictionaries, most of which are available without fee. Also, isn't the point of having a multi-language Wikipedia that the English entries don't have to be written in 'simplified English'? If someone isn't a native English speaker, can they not look up Paraguay in a language they understand better than English? Not taking sides, just some thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC) use the only language in English to be more understanding in your own language→English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.84.178 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jesuit-inspired War of the Seven Reductions ?
i love ninjas The War of the Seven Reductions article mentions that the war started when the Jesuit obeyed the King - and that it's the Indians that didn't obeye the order to move away. Is "jesuit-inspired" the right word then ? Is it actually correct to say that a war can be "inspired" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farialima (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Franciscan reductions
There ought to be a section about the Franciscan reductions. Since the franciscans were never kicked out, they probably had more long term influence than the jesuits. The Bradt guidebook to Paraguay has a lot of information about this, I'll try and take some notes next time I've got my hands on a copy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanelle (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Paraguay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Ppo0hSpY?url=http%3A%2F%2Famericas.irc-online.org%2Fam%2F2991 to http://americas.irc-online.org/am/2991

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alfredo Stroessner Paraguay stamp.jpg
 * Paraguay 1890-1940stamp-50ct (2).jpg

Neutral point of view
Section 5.1 on Francia (and possibly other sections as well) seems to have some problems with neutrality. Sweeping generalizations and biased statements are presented as plain facts without any citations or references to scholarly sources.

Just to give a few examples of statements that are clearly biased (these were all presented without any citations):

"Frugal, honest, competent, and diligent, Francia was popular with the lower classes of Creoles and native peoples."

"In contrast to other states in the region, Paraguay was efficiently and honestly administered, stable, and secure"

"An extremely frugal and honest man, Francia left the state treasury with at least twice as much money in it as when he took office"

"All of Paraguay's accomplishments during this period, including its existence as a nation, were attributed almost entirely to Francia." (by whom??)

The section also has a general problem with lack of references, as nearly all concrete statements are unsourced. While most of them are probably true and written with good will, extra caution should probably be applied given the already existing problems with lack of neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.247.180.132 (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Paraguay 1890-1940stamp-50ct (2).jpg