Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1

Translation
I'm in the process of a first-draft translation of the featured-Portuguese article on this same topic. I'm going by only a decent conversational command of Spanish and the Babelfish/Freetranslation translators, so it's a slog. Please don't remove/alter the stuff inside the <*!-- --*> brackets; that's what I haven't yet translated (unless you want to do some translating yourself!). Thanks. :) Zafiroblue05 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The following comment was left on my talk page, it might also be relevant: -- Jmabel | Talk 18:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am a user from the Catalan Wikipedia (Montag73) and the writer of the article on the Triple Alliance War there. I am a reader of the English Wikipedia and I have been reading some of your contributions in the Catalan related subjects. In my opinion the Catalan article for the Triple Alliance War is pretty good, although it is more focused on the political aspects of the war than in the war itself. So, I encourage you to use any part of it you think could be useful for the English article.


 * Best regards,
 * Salvador &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by (ca:usuari:montag73) 5 Dec 2005

Cleanup
i started to add an index to make the article more readable, i am not quite satisfied with the headlines, but at least it looks better like that... i alos added the template box, it is very helpfuzl, but should be changed to another style... --Larzan 16:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The page now is radically different than it was in July.  I'm removing the clean-up tag. Zafiroblue05 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright
I have found almost the same text at the following URL: http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.htm

This may be a copyright violation


 * I've dropped a note to User:Kulkuri, who originated the article; it hasn't changed much over time. - Jmabel | Talk 21:56, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have used source with permission. Anyway I will do some edits with article with more sources. --Kulkuri 15:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In general, when you copy material with permission, it's a good idea to put a note on the talk page; the best is to copy the email that gave you permission, or to note that there is general permission on the site, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, i noted the same and dropped another note, asking him to post the legitimation he has on this page.... --Larzan 16:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Odd removal
Why was "northward into the Brazilian province of Mato Grosso and southward into the province of Rio Grande do Sul" changed to just "southward into the province of Rio Grande do Sul"? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Misc.
This article needs a rewrite, If I get a chance Ill try soon. Poorly worded sections and missing references. (e.x. Who is Mitre ? )
 * 24.3.189.49 21:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing about Paraguay's American friends? (anonymous, somewhat cryptic, remark, 12 March 2005)

I have substituted 'British' for 'English' which is more acceptable to non-English British readers (i.e. Welsh and Scottish) MRJ

It mentions twice that Paraguay declared war on Argentina twice in March 1865. Quite confusing due to some lack of chronological order. -Aaron   27 February 2007, 6:59 PM EST

Bloodiness
The War of the Triple Alliance, also known as the Paraguayan War, was fought from 1864 to 1870, and was the bloodiest conflict in Latin American history (why not America History??), and the second (What is the first??) bloodiest conflict that occurred on the American continent. -->
 * I would say it was the third, after the Mexican Revolution (1 million killed) and the American Civil War.

Or I´m wrong, or this war is the first bloodiest conflict in all Americas.
 * It's really up for grabs, but the bloodies conflict in all the Americas was probably the American Civil War, in which approx 600,000 people died. Around 400,000-500,000 people died in the War of the Triple Alliance, most likely - although it could have been over a million if you ask the most radical pro-Paragauyan anti-Brazil/Argentina sources. Zafiroblue05 07:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the tidbit about the "second bloodiest conflict" removed. The American Civil War probably had a higher body count, but I'm not convinced that "bloodiness" comes down to a raw body count.  Having it in the intro seems to raise more questions than it answers, IMHO. --Bletch 16:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about something like "one of the bloodiest conflicts"? I agree that "bloodiness" is hard to quantify, but the fact that so many people died is one of the notable things about the war - even, one of the things that makes it notable - and therefore belongs in the lead, IMO... Zafiroblue05 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also find this quite confusing. First of all, if we are going to call it the second bloodiest  conflict, the article must mention who would be the first. A search for "bloodiest conflict"  on wikipedia does not return the American Civil War. I do believe it is possible to intuitively determine how much a war is "bloody"... The Crimean war, for example,  is take as one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, as the WW I is seen by some as bloodier than WW II, regardless of the number of casualties.
 * I do think this discussion should not be on the introduction, where we should only say it was "one of the bloodiest". I think the biggest reason to label it "bloody", more than because of the number of military casualties, is the impact on the civillians, and facts as the employ of women and children in the front; something I always heard of, but I can´t find references.
 * Wanna hear another confusing thing? The portuguese article only states it was the "largest international conflict in america", but some can say the American Civil War was between two independent nations... Not quite encyclopedic!...
 * Perhaps we should just change to "one of the bloodiest conflicts in american history", and link it to an article called "conflicts in american history", with a section about bloodiness, do you agree with that? -- NIC1138 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. As of right now, there's nothing really like Conflicts in American history - not anything that connects the Americas together. We have List of conflicts in North America and List of conflicts in South America (which had exactly one conflict listed when I came to it), but not a List of conflicts in the Americas. Zafiroblue05 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ¡Ahá! Check it out!.  Edit (the whole article! (at least if you want to see what I did)) and hopefully you'll be as impressed with my solution as I am with myself! :-D  Tom e rtalk  05:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice! :) I added a link to the list in the first paragraph. Zafiroblue05 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the new intro. --Bletch 14:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe this is settled, can we close this thread? Discussions about "which war was bloodier" belong to other articles, what we need here is to provide all the facts. -- NIC1138 03:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If "bloodiest" is to mean anything much, ought it not be relative to the whole (a comparative)? Thus the USA civil war killed many, but not so large a proportion of the whole population, likewise an individual may be killed with the shedding of no, some, or much blood so if bloodiest is to characterise the manner of one person's death, it must relate the blood shed to that available. In this regard, only the assaults of G. Khan et al, and Tamurlane would be bloodier, as they attained nearly 100% slaughter of entire cities and provinces. During my travels in Paraguay, I read many references to (and disputes over) numbers such as these: of the population of Paraguay, women (16 years and over) 60% died, of the men (16+) 99.5% died, but I don't recall the exact details (was it the age of 14, or 12, or am I recalling those ages in a count of boys up to twelve? - a decade ago, alas) There was a book The Stupidest War in the World (in Spanish, thus I don't quite recall the proper title. Something like El Guerra mas estupido del mundo), which I now half-recall was more concerned with the Bolivian/Paraguayan battle over the Chaco, but offered comparisons.

Ought there not be some mention of the slaving raids against the Paraguyans? The post-war admission of Guarani culture into the dominant Spanish culture? The peculiar position of the surviving boys, raised by their mothers yet conforming later to machismo, and the revival of dictatorship? The shortage of menfolk and possible sharing of husbands? (very little was written on this) The early social progress (education for girls, divorce) that led to Paraguay being seen as a worker's paradise, prompting Australians, dismayed at the depression of 1880s knocking back gains, emigrating to produce their own colony at Nuevo Australia in Paraguay? Which alas sank into dictatorship and the Chaco war over oil prospecting. Regards, NickyMcLean 02:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

War of the Triple Alliance/Campaigns
Doesn't War of the Triple Alliance/Campaigns belong in Tempalte: space, not article space? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'd suggest a move to Template:War of the Triple Alliance campaigns. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Children in the war
I always heard that Paraguay, after losing many man, had to use children and women in the army, but I could not find any references about this, and the only thing the article has is a picture of a boy, but it says that he is from Argentina!... What´s wrong here? -- NIC1138 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of children in war was relatively common in 19th century total wars (eg, US Civil War) - hell, it's fairly common today. See Military use of children. Paraguay certainly used children as well in the war, probably to a much greater extent than Argentina, mainly because by the end of the war it had degenerated into first a guerrilla war (in which the line between civilians, children, and soldiers was very hazy) and then into basically a flat-out genocide (although a term like that might be disputed by some sources) - and children were certainly involved. I'm currently in a long, slow, off-and-on process of finding sources for all the claims made in this article - as well as adding to the mortality and consequences section, so I'll see if I can find any direct sources on this issue. (And if you want to help, please! :P) Zafiroblue05 07:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There was an specific battle where it seems an army of 3.500 children fought 20.000 men from the Alliance, the Acosta Ñu battle. This date is currently the children´s day in Paraguay. I believe this is a very conspicuous fact of the Paraguayan War (sadly, the only thing I knew about it for many years). I was very surprised not to see any mention of it in any article, neither in the english, portuguese OR spanish wikipedias. This article about military use of children talks mostly about drummer boys, brainwashing, human shields and guerilla warfare, there´s very little there about actual armies of children.


 * We are talking about an army of children fighting alone (altough it seems women, wounded and older people were there too). Not in a guerilla war, or during attacks to civillians, but in a large battle. This is possibly the largest number of children to ever engage in a battle!... (I don´t know even about modern conflicts, that article for example doesn´t bring figures like this). We really must take a good look on this subject! And also it´s HIGLY ironic that there is this picture of an argentinian boy soldier, and not of a Paraguayan one. -- NIC1138 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A Brazilian version of History
I propose to change the name of this article to “The Brazilian-Paraguayan War” And that’s because I guess even Brazilians will have to cope with the fact that Paraguay was there too. That is somehow a relief: I assume that they are taking full responsibility for the possible death toll of 1.000.000, and exonerating Argentinian officers (Mitre (the supreme commander), Gelly y Obes, Paunero, Rivas, Luis María Campos, etc) for this massacre. I imagine that we will find soon that even the son of the emperor of Brazil died in the war, like Domingo Sarmiento (h) (of course, son of the would be president of Argentina) did. Because even López before he died spoke Portuguese (he was well prepared, wasn’t he) saying “Morro com minha patria” and not the more conventional “Muero con mi patria”, that up to now was the accepted version. But what I would really like to know is how Brazil defended Paraguayan interests by keeping for himself el Mato Grosso and occupying the country for six years. (Argentina was not really in a position to claim anything, since it had two wars to fight: with the Indians and the never ending civil war with los caudillos del interior. And later even with Mitre, who supported a revolution against Avellaneda in 1874) And why, if Brazil is so concerned with territorial integrity, they are not opening the files that would explain the border settlement of 1876. (And that’s not Mitre’s La Nación, but La folha de Sao Paulo of 12-22-2004 that informs us of Lula’s, or the army’s or who knows whose decision it was, that blocked for ever this opening. They called it “sigilo eterno”, eternal silence). All this is plain nonsense. But I guess that the author(s) is/are using the books for Brazilian schools as a source for an encyclopedic article. And that, more often than not, leads to nationalistic views of history. But that shouldn’t come as a surprise: this article is an English version of the Portuguese one. As a balance of sorts, we have the Spanish version that, of course, blames the Brazilians. And the French one, que comme d’habitude, blames no one. I am not saying this article is not respecting the NPOW policy. No, I wouldn’t. It is just one-sided childish stuff. And it needs much re-writing. Ou moito máis sigilo eterno.
 * Agreed - it could use rewriting. It's a long process... Wanna help? :) For me, claims should first be referenced. In regard to calling it the Brazilian-Paraguayan War - absolutely not. What about Argentina? Or even Uruguay? Why just Brazil and Paraguay? And who uses that term? (Essentially nobody on Google, at the very least). The article should be named by its most common name, which is the War of the Triple Alliance in common (English-language, as well as Spanish-language) parlanace, and Paraguayan War in common Brazilian parlance. After all, being PC is just another form of POV. Zafiroblue05 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You really don´t help coming here and calling the article "one-sided childish stuff". Please, contribute saying specifically what sections of the article do you dispute. Help us getting to the level of NPOV and then getting over it!...
 * I´m sure you can help if you just calm down a little... I did not remember the ominous sigilo eterno polemic, for example. We definitely should mention it in the article. ( Here are some links about this that I would be glad to translate  )
 * I am from Brazil, and the Paraguayan War is a subject I´m very emabarassed about knowing very little. I´m sure the people who wrote this article didn´t read brazilian books, because this article has much more information than we give to our children. The vision tought in schools is the one of the aristocracy in Rio de Janeiro back then: the war gave political power to the army, and helped a little in releasing the slaves. Just this... I was lucky to have a more concerned teacher who gave us some dimension about the impact of it to Paraguay... I believe the naïveté of that view is disrespectfull to brazilians as well.
 * You said the french article doesn´t blame anyone, but it does mention the most important aspect of the war: the British economic interests.
 * You should stop complaining, and work. Help us to fix everything. I would be glad to help you change the portuguese article if you want. Make the corrections, take off the "childish stuff". Perhaps some day we can all stop having flame wars over this issue. I´m tired of being called imperialist or "the USA of south America". Childish stuff is coming here and saying that it is impossible that we, wikipedia users and writers, can´t create a good article. Fight for it, put a NPOV tag and complain in an organized way, don´t sit there screaming "help, I´m being oppressed". -- NIC1138 05:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m most calmed. And certainly I didn’t want to start a little fight over this. I’m sorry if I offended someone. But the reason why I’m not contributing myself seems crystal to me now: I’m not quite proficient with the language. And frankly, I am no historian, either. However, I will try to explain myself in a much straightforward way this time. Wasn’t Bertrand Russell who used to say that people should learn history by reading the books of neighbouring countries? This is a most salutary exercise, but one that wouldn’t help with an encyclopedia article. For that we have NPOW. And the point I was trying to make was that this is a Brazilian vision of what happened. There is almost no mention of Argentinian officers (even to blame Mitre for Curupaytí) but we have a long list of Brazilians. In fact, despite the statement of the article (and I hope that this is not acontroversial issue) Argentina did have at least one war against Brazil (not the independent Brazil, of course) between 1825 and 1827, after Brazil annexed Uruguay (Provincia Oriental del Río de la Plata) and re-named it Provincia Cisplatina. This war started with what is known as Los 33 orientales (which is part of the official history of Uruguay and you may find in Wikipedia in the Spanish section) and ended at la batalla de Ituzaingó. After that, and up to 1852, Uruguay took part in the Civil War of Argentina (in fact, many Unitarios were exiled at Montevideo which was under siege) against the tyranny of Rosas (Rivera was against, Oribe was in favor). This war ended with the intervention of Brazil against Oribe. (You may remember that 4.200 Brazilians paraded through Buenos Aires after Rosas felt). So, you see, all this goes way too back in the past. Now, I fully understand that you can not put all that in an article, but to say that Argentina and Brazil almost had had two wars is an understatement.

Of course, the Portuguese quote of the dying words of López should be removed by now, simply because he did not say them in Portuguese and this is an English article.

I am glad you found the sigilo eterno statement.

Finally, to say that Argentina wanted to annexed Paraguay and that Brazil stayed there six years to prevent it….well, that sounds a bit like a pre-emptive theory to me. First of all, because Brazil stayed there six years and Argentina did not, and secondly because you are forgetting la Doctrina Varela that stated that “La victoria no da derechos” (Victory gives no right) which was first accepted as a semi-official policy by Sarmiento, and later rejected (Mitre had something to say about that, you can imagine) but which was used in the negotiations with Brazil. And to say that Brazil (or Argentina, for all that matter) received the borders that had claimed before the war is not a legal argument, is it? Despite the heroic death of so many, and the incontrovertible fact that López invaded Corrientes, the war has always been highly criticized in Argentina. So is a shameful, but inevitable necessity to put it in the picture. And blaming one or the other won’t make this war less of a shame.

Again, I’m sorry if I offended someone. And I’m sorry for this boring post, but I thought I might contribute some way or another with some hints for a more qualified person than myself to work with. Despite being Argentinian myself I'm not enough presumptuous to meddle with someone else writing without at least as much as discussing it first.

But to reassure you nobody was calling you nor imperialist, nor anyting. Last time I was in Argentina (15 days ago) none cared nor complained about Brazil. We do not think about you, just as you do not think about us. And personally, I was most obliged to you in this travel: you were really cooperative (Polícia Federal and all) to help me find the passport I had lost at Guarulhos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.186.74 (talk • contribs) 22 Jan 2006

Casualty counts
"One estimate places total Paraguayan losses - through both war and disease - as high as 1.2 million people, or 90 percent of its pre-war population.[2] A perhaps more accurate estimate places Paraguayan deaths at approximately 300,000 people out of its 500-525,000 prewar inhabitant"

1.2 million deaths out of a population of 525,000 doesn't do much to inspire confidence in this article. Do the population estimates for Paraguay really vary between 500,000 and 1.3 million? "In 1864 the Paraguayan army consisted of 37 batallions and 29 regiments, with a total of 35,305 soldiers and 3,306 officers. Paraguay fielded no more than 30,000 to 40,000 troops at any given time, and inducted into service 70,000 to 80,000 during the five-year war, out of a population between 312,000 and 407,000." (Vera Blinn Reber Shippensburg University: A Case of Total War: Paraguay, 1864−1870. Vera Blinn Reber source:(61) Pedro Lorela y Maury to Foreign Minister, 26 Dec. 1865, Archivo General del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de España (hereafter cited as AGMEE), Política Paraguay (hereafter cited as PP), Correspondencia respecto a la Guerra del Paraguay (hereafter cited as CGP), 2576; Cuadro del estado general del ejército, 1865, ANA, SH 344 no. 22; Gabriel Carrasco, La población del Paraguay, antes y después de la guerra: rectificación de opiniones generalmente aceptadas, Asunción, Talleres Nacionales de H. Kraus, 1905, p. 6; Reber. ‘Demographics of Paraguay’, pp. 295−96.
 * Absolutely. Zafiroblue05 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Documentation in Paraguay was rather poor after the independence and Francia's Dictatorship. This coupled with the destruction the war caused led to the loss of information and documentation concerning the country. There is still an on going debate in Paraguay regarding the pre-war and post-war population. The only thing certain is that between 75% to 90% of the population was killed, and that of the survivors only a handful were male. This was due to an order from the allies that no paraguayan male older than 12 was to be left alive. Veritiel (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Make up your mind
"In fact, Britain can be seen as the power that most benefited from the war: aside from exterminating the Paraguayan threat in South America, even Brazil and Argentina fell into massive debts that continue to this day (Brazil paid all British loans by Getúlio Vargas era)." The parenthetical remark seems to contradict the main sentence; there is no citation for any of this. Does someone know what is going on? - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Maps
Considering that the war changed the geography of the region significantly, I think the article could probably benefit from some prewar and postwar maps, if anyone has any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.135.108.179 (talk • contribs) 29 August 2006.
 * Indeed. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A map is completely necessary to further understand what the article is trying to explain. For the least if one could try to make a map to sort-of help visualize the situation. Seriously, how large was Paraguay before the war? MarshalN20 14:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is that easy. Large portions of territory where not under effective control of any of the states (they were basically inhabited by natives), and since the region was coming from a chaotic process of independence, every country used to draw maps with the uncontrolled regions as own. This happened also with Patagonia (even the independent Buenos Aires province draw maps claiming it) and happen today wit Antarctica. I think a very serious research by scholars would be needed, and even so I don`t think enough data is known for drawing accurate and controversy-free maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domar1973 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, added a map that roughly shows the pre war Paraguayan territory and the post war one along with references of it. Veritiel (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Convoluted POV-ish sentence
From the article: "They remembered that Solano López, believing he would have Mitre's support, seized the opportunity to attack Brazil created by Mitre, when he used Argentinian Navy to deny access to River Plate to Brazilian ships in early 1865, thus starting the war." - Jmabel | Talk 16:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed cited material
The undoubtedly too strong statement "In recent years such views [that the War of the Triple Alliance was caused by pseudo-colonial influence of the British] have been abandoned in light of the work of writers such as Francisco Doratiotto was removed, but along with it the following footnote was also removed: Mário Maestri, Revista Espaço Acadêmico, Guerra contra o Paraguai: Da Instauração à Restauração Historiográfica, Ano II, No. 2, January 2003..

I'm sure there was some substance here, even if someone overstated their case. Someone may want to look into what should be restored. - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

s
I think my last edit was called for?70.74.35.252 11:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Consequences of the war
The first two paragraphs of this section are innacurate. Between 1870 and 1876 Argentine governments had to deal with a long series of civil revolts and Indian attacks and had no intention nor strenght to seize the Chaco by force. Moreover, Argentine president Domingo Faustino Sarmiento proclaimed his famous La victoria no da derechos ("Victory confers no rights") doctrine which summarized his willingness to negotiate with Paraguay in equal terms the territorial disputes.

The view is controvertial. Some people (e.g. Halperin Donghi) has argued that the war lead to the consolidation of the state (rather than "modernization" as was previously claimed in the article). Indeed the central effective govt was quite recent. I added a reference to a site from CEMA university: it is in spanish but is quite serious, shows different scholar views and quote numerous references. And is a quite stable resource: it's been there for many years. On the other hand, as argentinian I know the Sarmiento's quote, but I am a litle skeptic about it and its meaning (the first paragraph is not mine).Daniel Omar Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Right at the end of this section is the line, "Some even go so far as to claim Britain instigated the entire conflict." There is no citation for this so I have marked it as requiring citation. It strikes me as a rather bold statement to make without backing it up. If serious scholars or historians are making this claim then there really ought to be a reference to say who they are. I notice that there is a reference at the start of the article that such claims were made in the 60s and 70s but do not know whether such claims are still in vogue with historians of this period in South American history. IrishPete (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) The most important (or, at least, popular) proponent in Brazil of the British as instigators was Júlio José Chiavenato, em especial "A Guerra do Paraguai", Brasiliense, (1986 in the version I have, but actually first published in the lete 70s or esrly eighties). He especializes in popular history rewrites (no archival research)from a extreme left-wing point of view. At the time, the book caused quite a stir as it went against the official historiography during the miliary regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.121.179.62 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloodiest?
"and was by some measures the bloodiest war in the history of the Americas"

What about the American Civil War??? Compare the casualty boxes of both. 09:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In absolute numbers, more people died in the American Civil War. But Paraguay lost almost 60% of its population and 90% of male population. Also, Paraguay had a population of 525,000 and the Triple Alliance sent over 150,000 soldiers. That is more than one soldier for each four people in Paraguay. Italo Tasso (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

(1 million killed.)

ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH BLOODIEST
The word "bloodiest" for me suggests deaths in which the body sheds blood/ deaths in battle (Per Webster on line >bloody is applied especially to things that are actually covered with blood<)

Yet per the article >The high rates of mortality, however, were not the result of the armed conflict in itself.< The article explicitly states that Brazilian soldiers died primarily from bad food, ill health, typhoid and further that many more Paraguayians civilians died than soldiers, suggesting that more Paraguaians died because of war conditions than because of direct contact with bullets or metal blades. So about another word or phrase to replace "bloodiest" ... (jon_petrie@yahoo.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.37.93 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK changed end of first sentence that formerly employed "bloodiest" now >>and caused more deaths than any other South American war.<< Kits2 (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
This article implies that the Chaco War, between Paraguay and Bolivia, was beneficial to Paraguay:


 * It took decades for Paraguay, and the Chaco War, to recover from the chaos and demographic imbalance in which it had been placed ...

But the Chaco War article says:


 * The war was a disaster for both sides.

Well, which is it? --208.76.104.133 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * fixed.Ekem (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding the objectivity of Wikipedia's categorization of this page.
Can someone explain to me why this article is classified under the Project Brazil page? How can a war that was fought by four nations be classified entirely under one? Its as if we decided to include World War 2 solely under the Germany project page. Mariscal8 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is no discussion regarding the occupation and ransacking of Asuncion. I will add these facts to the page. Mariscal8 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Argentine expansionism?
"The government of Buenos Aires intended to reconstruct the territory of the old Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, enclosing Paraguay and Uruguay. It carried out diverse attempts to do so during the first half of the 19th century, without success — many times due to Brazilian intervention. Fearing excessive Argentine control, Brazil favored a balance of power in the region, helping Paraguay and Uruguay retain their sovereignty."

I don't think this is anywhere near to be true: The Argentines embarked in freeing Uruguay up from Brazil in the Argentina-Brazil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina-Brazil_War). It was very evident that Brazil wanted to merely seize all the territory on the East Bank of the Uruguay river, mainly to reap the economical benefits of using the Rio de la Plata ports (Montevideo). Moreover, the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata did not pursue any sort of integrationalism in order to go back to the former colonial status quo of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata: Most of the territory that Argentina "lost" has never been claimed back.

Argentina had has, indeed, an expansionits actitud during the XIX century. The problem was that the country, living a no ending civil war, lost many time in internal fighting. The reconstruction of the territories of the Viceroyalty was used to claim the ownership of the Patagonia. But, the country never when to far as to start a war in order to conquer territories from other conuntries, in fact, Argentina enter this war only when provocated. So, Argentina expanded during the XIX and XX century, but mostly in the territories that where under the indians control and, more or less, respected the other conutries territories. The original pretensions of Argentina where lost when Paraguay got it's independence in 1811, when Belgrano and other argentinan generals where push back from the Alto Peru during the independence war and from Uruguay when the posibilities of starting a new war against Brasil (without the support from England) where to real. After that, there where little to no expansion to the nort. This war, correct me if I'm wrong, the last expansion of argentina to the North and after that the frontier takes almost it's current form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes about the aftermath of the War
Argentina did not became the wealthiest country in Latin America after the conflict. Brazil would keep it´s place as the wealthiest latin american nation until the end of the monarchy in 1889 (19 years after the war.)

Brazil´s GDP was worth US$ 11 billion in 1889 while Argentina´s GDP was worth US$ 7 billions (in 1990 value) according to Angus Maddison in "FAUSTO, Boris. Brasil e Argentina: Um ensaio de história comparada (1850-2002). São Paulo: Editoria 34. 2004".

--

I´ll put in here a translation of the 1st chapter of the second volume fo the biograph of Pedro II written by Heitor Lyra (LYRA, Heitor. História de dom Pedro II: Fastígio (1870-1880). São Paulo: Itatiaia, 1877) that it is still considered the best one about the second emperor:

"The end of the War of the Triple Alliance marks the apogee of the imperial regimen in Brazil. It is the golden age of the Monarchy. The Empire, can be said, reaches its full maturity." pg.9

--

Another piece:

"We firmed, in the Exterior, a concept that we never had before. The stability of our institutions, its conservative nature, the internal peace, the joust nomination of our politicians, the refinement of our society and, over all, the unmistakeble, respectable personality in all directions of Dom Pedro II, everything concurred to give us a reputation in the international community, with the exception of the United States of America, that no other country of America could enjoy." pg.9

--

According to Roderick J. Barman in "Princess Isabel of Brazil: Gender and power in the Nineteenth Century" (2002), Brazil was passing through a moment of great economic prosperity in 1889.

--

Emperor Pedro II would keep himself as the most beloved man by the brazilian population until the end of the monarchy and even after his death two years later (CARVALHO, José Murilo de. D. Pedro II: ser ou não ser. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007 and DORATIOTO, Francisco. General Osorio. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2008).

---

The War of the Triple Alliance had consequence in the end of the monarchy because the Brazilian Army was influenced by the argentinian and uruguayan armies:

"The permanence for more than five years, of the army and the volunteers, later restituted to the civil society, in the Republics of the Plata region, it was harmful to us without a doubt. Those countries were then a school of despotism and caudillism" pg.71 (FERREIRA, Oliveiros S. Vida e morte do Partido Fardado. São Paulo: FERNAC, 2000)

Obs.: Caudillism comes from Caudillo, a common spanish-american figure that is usually a millitary who is unsubordinate and is always conspirating or trying to make coups d´Etat.

-

What happened is that as long the old monarchist and millitary were alive, like the Duke of Caxias, Osorio (Marquiss of Herval), the marquiss of Tamandaré, marshall Polidoro, marshall Sampaio, Admiral Barroso, the younger generation would behave. After their deaths (Osorio died in 1879 and Caxias in 1880), the Army started to became unsubordinate and rebellious. They believed that they had no obligation to accept orders from civilians (something that the old generation did) and they could try to act in politics, even if by the force of the arms. This coupled with the growing uninterest of Pedro II of keeping alive the monarchy, led to its downfall. So, the War of the Triple Alliance had long range consequences and not imediate.

I hope I helped a little bit.--Lecen (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy
This anonymous, unsummarized edit removed the sentence "After the war, the Catholic church temporarily allowed polygamy to help repopulate the country." I believe the sentence was accurate, but it's not cited for, and I don't know about this with certainty, so I'm not restoring at this time. It would be useful if someone would restore it with citation so that it would be easy to "defend" it in the future. - Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think the church just looked the other way, which is different from allowing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The people scarred?
While it could be an enlightening metaphor in other contexts, it seems rather unencyclopedic for this article to state, "The Paraguayan people had been profoundly scarred, since López ordered troops to kill any combatant, including officers, who manifested signs of cowardice" (emphasis added). Besides, not only was scarred substituted for scared in this edit, but the meaning was pretty much the same even before this earlier one, so the former looks like an overzealous spelling correction. Splibubay (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Translation from Spanish
This edit, while adapting to English the second paragraph in the lead section, taken from the Spanish version (second paragraph there, too), introduced two notable distortions in meaning:
 * "La visión alternativa pone el acento en la agresiva política del mariscal Solano López respecto de los asuntos rioplatenses" means the alternate view underlines Solano López's aggressive policy towards River Plate matters, issues or affairs, not the region's inhabitants, even though the word chosen in the original translation—subjects—can invite this interpretation.
 * "Comenzó a fines de 1864 con las acciones bélicas entre Brasil y Paraguay; a partir de 1865 ya puede hablarse de «Guerra de la Triple Alianza»" states nothing as to whether the war has been called "the War of the Triple Alliance" (la Guerra de la Triple Alianza) right since 1865—it only asserts this name can be properly used to refer to the war as it unfolded from that time onwards. Splibubay (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What caused the high death toll?
The article insinuates that Lopez killed his own men 'talking of surrender' and cholera is why Paraguay lost 90% of their population. But if I recall, this article said two years ago that the high mortality rate was due to Paraguay's refusal to surrender, and a long guerrilla war with the Brazilians occupying Paraguay. The article seems chopped down; considering what it was before. It doesn't really describe the war in any detail, other than there were a few major battles and Lopez died a painful death. Any comments? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, this (interesting!) article needs to be totally rewritten. Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Absence of Argentina and Uruguay
This article centers mainly on the Brazil-Paraguay struggle, but says nothing about Argentinian and Uruguayan intervention of the war, the invasion of Corrientes in Argentina, the role of Mitre in the war, some important battles like Tuyutí, which was the bloodiest battle in South America, which destroyed most of Paraguay's cavalry and forced López to take a defensive stand. It lacks details on Asuncion's pillage, in which Argentina refused to participate, at least oficially; and Argentina's position towards the end of the war. I'm Argentinian and I find this quite incomplete. Still, I don't know enough of the war in detail as to write an article, and specially in a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.126.70 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, the article is totally focused on Brazil's actions and nothing is said about its allies. I'd like to help rewriting this; however I don't have verifiable sources at hand, and (although interested in it) I'm not an expert in South American history. Can anyone please help? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly believe that will ever happen. I'm the only Brazilian editor who is working on Brazilian-history related articles now and the Argentine editors do not pay much attention to this one. I never heard of any Uruguayan or Paraguayan editor in here, but I might be mistaken. --Lecen (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: all moved. I also moved Women in the Paraguayan War (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

– Straight to the point: the name "Paraguayan War" (16,100 results ) is far more used in English written sources than "War of the Triple Alliance" (6,080 results ). Lecen (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * War of the Triple Alliance → Paraguayan War
 * List of battles of the War of the Triple Alliance → List of battles of the Paraguayan War
 * Triple Alliance War casualties → Paraguayan War casualties


 * Support as nominator. --Lecen (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. ~16,000 vs. 6,000 hits on Google Books; 1,700 vs. 1,000 on Google Scholar. Neutralitytalk 20:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I've never heard this term before, despite studying the history of the period. Nyttend (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you never heard then you certainly never studied the history of the period. Countless are the books with the name itself in their titles (,, , , etc...). --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to be a simple case of choosing the more common name of two reasonable alternatives. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, mainly on account of the ambiguity of Triple Alliance. All of these various Triple Alliances were engaged in a war with someone! Andrewa (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

War of the Triple Alliance v Paraguayan War
I'm surprised the title has been changed to fit a mainly Brazilian POV name. In any case, the google hits I get for "Paraguayan War" are 71,500, whereas the "War of the Triple Alliance" receives almost 4x the amount of hits 274,000. Based on this evidence, the page should be returned to its former NPOV and most common English title of "War of the Triple Alliance". Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I quick google search show 1.500.000 results for "War of the triple Alliance", while 1.200.000 for Paraguayan War. Paraguay also had a war against Bolivia (The Chaco War). How is that war less "paraguayan" than the previous war. That name was and is mainly used by Brazil, translations of their material retain the naming, everywhere else is either "The War of the Triple Alliance" or "The War against the Triple Alliance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.23.74.167 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The following excerpt should be removed: "This industrial and military growth required some contact with the international market, but Paraguay is and was a landlocked country. Its ports were river ports, and Paraguayan and other ships had to travel down the Río Paraguay and the Río Paraná to reach the estuary of the Río de la Plata (shared by Argentina and Uruguay) and the Atlantic Ocean. President Solano López conceived of a project to obtain ports on the Atlantic Ocean: he probably intended to create a "Greater Paraguay" by capturing a slice of Brazilian territory that would link Paraguay to the Atlantic coast."

The reference "Brandon Valeriano, "A Classification of Interstate War: Typologies and Rivalry." Article based on talk given March 17–20, 2004 to the International Studies Association in Montreal. File available at [1], accessed December 30, 2005." is broken.

A quick google search return this: http://tigger.uic.edu/~bvaler/ClassificationWar%20SPSA.doc [Google search removed because of URL filters]

Where this paragraph reads: " Likewise, the Lopez War involved intervention in a civil war by the different parties, but at the same time Langer (1972: 848) recognizes that Francisco Solano Lopez’s father and previous President of Paraguay “has asserted Paraguayan territorial claims against Argentina and Brazil…” and that his son “desired territory and perhaps envisaged a Greater Paraguay.” Langer (1972: 848) concludes that,“The ambitions of Lopez, Brazilian intervention in Uruguay”… [Lopez’s support of the other faction in Uruguay] and unsettled territorial claims …brought about the war.” "

The author bibliography says : Langer, William L. 1980. An Encyclopedia of World History, 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

The author uses three separate statements by Langer to draw a conclusion. The second statement is both an assertion "he wanted territory" and speculation "perhaps envisaged a Greater Paraguay" by Langer, the third asserts that Lopez ambitions along with Brazilian intervention started the whole mess. Lopez "ambitions" now including un-proven speculation.

Furthermore the Sixth Edition of" Langer, William L. An Encyclopedia of World History, BOSTON: HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY, 2001 NEW YORK: BARTLEBY.COM, 2002 has no mention of this. But it says: "López [Carlos Antonio] relaxed Dr. Francia's isolationism, hiring foreign technicians, engineers, and artisans to build up his military. But the neighboring countries still refused to recognize Paraguay's independence. Rosas, the Argentine dictator, closed the Paraná River to vessels bound to Asunción. In 1849, tensions intensified, and López prepared for war. Brazil and Uruguay, both in conflict with Rosas, recognized Paraguay. After Rosas's fall, the Argentine Confederation recognized Paraguay's independence and its right to free navigation (1852)."

There were serious concerns about armed conflict but nothing on a "Greater Paraguay" master plan. The whole concept is ridiculuos, there simply was no manpower for ocupation, few roads and most transport was fluvial. When Lopez attacked the brazilians it was at the north of the country not at the east. There was no way to occupy and resupply troops in a such circunnstances. Also there would be no need to pass through argentinian territory if Lopez wanted to conquer the zones on the east.

There is simply no reliable reference to this "Greater Paraguay" thingy. And there is no reasonable way to theorize on such a plan. Lopez was no good militarily but wasn't an complete idiot either.

I could not find a 5th edition, so I can't say the quotations from book are wrong. The 6th edition either remove them or they were never there. Also the author presented this in a paper with little more evidence and in a non neutral poit of view, trying to promote his paper.

I'll wait some weeks and then I'll remove the paragraph and refence to the "Greater Paraguay" issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.23.74.167 (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I missed the move and would have commented, to the best of my knowledge it is almost exclusively known as The War of the Triple Alliance in English. I've never seen the term Paraguayan War and its a term that could easily be confused with the Chaco War. I would have opposed the move and wonder with another RM is in order.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Books written about the war use the name "Paraguayan War" as can be seen The Paraguayan War: Causes and early conduct and The Paraguayan War and even on wargaming such as Wargaming the Paraguayan War - 1864-1870. How many Triple Alliances were there? Countless. The name "Paraguayan War" is far more unique. The Chaco War has never been called "Paraguayan War". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The google books search demonstrates that "War of the Triple Alliance" is 4x more likely to be used than "Paraguayan War". Your claim, Lecen, that "Paraguayan War" is "far more unique" falls as a personal opinion. Added that your original premise relied on Google Books, which as demonstrated by my post in this section (the first one), actually favors "War of the Triple Alliance". Given that your original premise was false, that makes your conclusion (and thereby the move) erroneous as well.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I'm not convinced by Lecen's argument here, the Paraguayan War as a title has similar problems with the fact that there is more than one. The term War of the Triple Alliance is the predominant term in the English language.  How many "War of the Triple Alliance" are there?  If you look at the terms quoted above, whilst there may have been many Triple Alliances, invariably the actual war is not knonw by that name.  Wee Curry Monster talk 16:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you point me out a single conflict which is also called "Paraguayan War"? Triple Alliance, however, there are various. Books written about the Paraguayan War mostly prefer the use of this name, not "War of the Triple Alliance". There is a reson too: all other previous wars fought in the region which are directly connected to it have similar names, such as Cisplatine War and Platine War. The use of geographic name instead of a political name is indeed preferred. I'd like to ask if any of you has the intention of actually improving this article or all you want is a change in the name? --Lecen (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ ,. And I challenge you to point to another conflict referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance.  Thank you.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like your tone. I had a lot of work bringing Pedro II of Brazil and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias to Featured Article standard. I also brought Platine War to Good Article standard. All of them colsely related to this article. It was also I the one who added pictures to this article as well as to Francisco Solano López. After I saw the comments in this talk page I was hoping I would get some help here but I was wrong. I'll leave others reply. --Lecen (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall I take it with that comment you're acknowledging my point that there isn't another conflict referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance? Further you do not dispute that Google Books demonstrates it is more common.  Shall we take that as read?  I would close by noting that Glaswegians speak plainly and suggest you don't read nuances into my comments that don't exist.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, WCM has at no point in this discussion made any offensive tones against you Lecen. I, as a Latin American historian, value your contributions to the WP project (bringing articles to FA standard is not an easy task); and WCM surely also appreciates your contributions (of course, I have no intention of patronizing him, but in any case he has not dismissed your relevance as an editor). Nonetheless, it would be best if you demonstrated your position by: (a) presenting another war called "War of the Triple Alliance" and (b) demonstrating that Google Books actually supports your position. If you cannot provided either one of these points, then the optimal solution would be simply for you to return the name of the article to "War of the Triple Alliance." And, yes, that is essentially all that is being argued at this time (nobody is challenging your other edits to the article).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems just like another editor who's thinks he owns wikipedia -Ilhador- (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Both are apparently common names and reasonable titles; it's just a matter of deciding between two good alternatives. "War of the Triple Alliance" returns about 164,000 hits on Google Books while "Paraguayan War" returns over 57,000 However, recent sources seem to favor "Paraguayan War" slightly; WOTTA gets 2550 hits on Google Books since 2000; while "Paraguayan War" gets 3190. Additionally, I get 808 hits on Google Scholar for the former, compared to 1,250 for the latter. If anyone wants to move the page again, it needs to go through another move discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c  20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the tone expressed by a few here (not you, Cuchullain), specially after what Ilhador said. I'm asking everyone to keep a high level on this discussion, please. --Lecen (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to reiterate that a key policy on wikipedia is WP:AGF and I would suggest you don't read nuances into comments that were never intended. Please lets keep this a civil discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cuchullain, a factor you're not taking into account is that in the vast majority of other languages the war is known as the "War of the Triple Alliance" (Spanish and French, for example). Also, taking into account the recent sources does cause a case for concern per WP:RECENT (which, though it mainly applies for news articles, it can also apply for these kind of discussions). In the historical sense, the term "War of the Triple Alliance" by far exceeds "Paraguayan War," which even on recent terms is barely more used than the previous. Perhaps in the future this article will be rightfully titled "Paraguayan War," but Wikipedia should not be the one to advance or impose such a motion.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not because of how many sources use the name, but merely because, as you said in your own words, it is "a mainly Brazilian POV name". Since you're a Peruvian, your eagerness to change the name of this article (which you never contributed before and I doubt you ever will) is merely because you see the name as it is favored by Brazilians only. Not correct. As I said earlier, and Cuchullain was kind enough to provide sources, books focused on the war prefer to use the name "Paraguayan War" and thus avoid any mistake with so many other Triple Alliances in history, such as in World War I and World War II. For this reason it has become far and far better known as "Paraguayan War". The name "War of the Triple Alliance" itself has issues, mainly because it sounds like it was a war caused by an alliance. The name "Paraguayan War", as the names Platine War and Cisplatine War are neutral, based solely on geographical reasons to use the name. --Lecen (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All I keep seeing from you are rants and unfounded accusations (the tone of WCM, my nationality,...what comes next?). I provided sources as well, in the first post of this section, and yet you conveniently ignored them for the longest time possible. You keep to ignore the central issues here which include:
 * The original move of "War of the Triple Alliance" to "Paraguayan War" was done under false premises.
 * Historical name of the conflict vastly outnumbers "Paraguayan War" in favor of "War of the Triple Alliance".
 * WP:OR claims of "other Triple Alliances in history" without demonstrating any other major conflict called "War of the Triple Alliance."
 * Given these points, your lack of response to them, and the number of people suggesting it, I request a move of all "Paraguayan War" material to "War of the Triple Alliance".-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jenks, I think that's very helpful. In response to a comment above I'd like to add that the name of the war in other languages is irrelevant if there's a common name (or names) in English. This appears to be a choice between two solid, demonstrably common alternative names for this subject in English.Cúchullain t/ c 03:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I closed the last RM and don't really care which title the article is at, but I thought I'd note a few things because this keeps popping up on my watchlist. 1) If you are trying to say that the name "Paraguayan War" is POV, then you need some sources to back up that claim. 2) While google books counts are good indicators, they can be big differences depending on who is searching; it's best to use a ngram. In this case it does show that "Paraguayan War" is slightly more common. 4) Spanish and French sources carry little weight, as WP:AT specifies English sources (after all, we are writing in English). 5) Recent sources are obviously preferable to sources that are, say, 100 years old. 6) Lecen, please stop making accusations about other editors' motivations. 7) The previous RM was conducted properly. 8) Regarding your request, Marshal, you need to start a requested move (instructions are on that page). Best to you all, Jenks24 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with "Paraguayan War", which was already noted before, is that other "Paraguayan Wars" actually do exist: In an attempt to fix the problem, which seems to be one resulting from the search, I used "The Paraguayan War" (a much more exact term than the ambiguous "Paraguayan War"; the ambiguity a problem also relevant to Wikipedia), and that resulted in the following:. Based on that ngram, "War of the Triple Alliance" is more common than "The Paraguayan War".
 * Paraguayan War of Independence, which ngram doesn't recognize for some reason . Ngram not recognizing it is worrysome as it may mean that it is including it to the "Paraguayan War" list (which would make it erroneous) or ignoring it (which would make the ngram system erroneous as well); I think the first one is more likely.
 * Bolivian-Paraguayan War, also ignored by ngram.
 * In conclusion: The problem with ngram in this case is that "Paraguayan War" is an extremely ambiguous term that can apply to any other conflict Paraguay has been involved in (and even cases where the search engine finds terms like "Paraguayan War Office"). "War of the Triple Alliance" is much more exact and only refers to a single conflict.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Leave this be. A quick look at Triple Alliance will show that there is great chaos in using that as part of the article's name. Alarbus (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The same argument is repeated time and again but, despite the many "Triple Alliances" that have existed in the world, only one "War of the Triple Alliance" exists. Similarly, just as there is only one country named "Paraguay" in the world, several "Paraguayan War" have existed (including the Bolivian-Paraguayan War and the Paraguayan War of Independence). As such, while "Paraguayan War" is the ambiguous title, "War of hte Triple Alliance" is the one with the specific meaning.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 05:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the fact that naming the article after an ambiguous term will lead to ... wait for it... more ambiguity. Most will believe it a reference to a European war under your preferred title. Alarbus (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your argument is WP:OR. If you can provide a reference that validates your claim, then and only then can you rightfully claim that the term "War of the Triple Alliance" is ambiguous. On the other hand, I have provided evidence which demonstrates that "Paraguayan War" is so ambiguous that even Google ngram gets it confused with other events.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 06:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is about articles, not talk pages. And, no, you don't get to determine what I may rightfully claim; that's just amusing. Alarbus (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to get into a debate here because, as I've said, I really have no opinion on this. But your analysis of the ngram is faulty. The reason "Paraguayan War of Independence" and "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" aren't "registered" on the ngram is because they are so rarely used (7 gbooks results for "Paraguayan War of Independence" and the other war is commonly known as the "Bolivia-Paraguay War"). Also, it is lopsided to add "The" to "Paraguayan War", but not to "War of the Triple Alliance". If you add "The" to both (see here), Paraguayan War is more common. Again, though, if you really think it should be moved you need to start a requested move. Jenks24 (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I often use ngrams to illustrate the point but it didn't work too well in this case. The problem with simply using Paraguayan War is that it also brings up false positives from the "Paraguayan War of Independence" and "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" or variations thereof.  ngrams need to be used with great care.  I tried using parentheses to eliminate the false positives but found I got no results instead.
 * I would also comment that the assertion readers would assume this is a European War is false. I'm Scottish and I've only ever seen this referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance in British books that I have on the conflict.  The alleged confusion with Triple Alliance is a red herring in my opinion.  It is more confusing that this article appears to be using an uncommon name in respect of English language sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "Paraguayan War" does not appear to be uncommon. In fact, if ngram is to be believed, the terms are about equally common in books published since 1980.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm Scottish and I've only ever seen this referred to as the War of the Triple Alliance in British books that I have on the conflict." Then you're going to the wrong library or bookstore. UK Amazon has 72 books about "Paraguayan War" and only 17 books about "War of the Triple Alliance". By the way, U.S. Amazon has 61 books about "Paraguayan War" and 17 books about "War of the Triple Alliance". So, this means that the average British and American have far more chance to stumble on a book about the "Paraguayan War", not about the "War ofthe Triple Alliance". Wee Curry Monster, you should change your bookstore of choice. --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

--- Lecen, your attitude in this discussion (particularly towards WCM) is really getting annoying. Don't take this matter as a personal crusade, so please calm down. Now, regarding the alleged confusion of "Triple Alliances", I know for a fact that in the United States historians prefer the term "War of the Triple Alliance" exactly because "Paraguayan War" can be identified as other wars in which Paraguay has been involved. With this in mind, and given WCM's opinion, your claim that "War of the Triple Alliance" is an ambiguous term is erroneous. Previously, Lecen accused me of having a Peruvian-bias (not sure how that even makes sense in this discussion), but I took the time to find sources which validate my claim that "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilian POV name. Here are the results: I believe this confirms that "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilian POV term. Another example to make in this case is comparing how each title (Paraguayan War, War of the Triple Alliance) would fare as disambiguation pages. While "Paraguayan War" would easily serve as a disambiguation page for three conflicts (Independence, WOTTA, and Chaco), "War of the Triple Alliance" would be a poor disambiguation page as no other major conflict in world history has ever been called the "War of the Triple Alliance."-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Robert Levine, The History of Brazil: the War of the Triple Alliance (1865-1870), known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War Page 64).
 * Roland Robertson and Kathleen E. White, Globalization: "Dramatized by certain emblematic events, such as what is known in Brazil as the 'Paraguayan War'" (Page 240).
 * Sing C. Chew and Robert Allen Denemark (editors), The Underdevelopment of Development: the Paraguayan manufacturing economy, which was devastated by a bloody war known in Brazil as the Paraguayan War (Page 160).
 * The disambiguation issue doesn't really wash, for either title. As Jenks24 mentioned above, the term "Paraguayan War" does not appear to be used for any other war with any frequency.Cúchullain t/ c 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we considered that "Paraguayan War" is mildly ambiguous, it still remains as such. On the other hand, "War of the Triple Alliance" is not ambiguous in any way or form. That is a key difference between both terms.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not hearing me. I'm saying it doesn't appear to be even "mildly ambiguous". As far as I can tell no other conflict is ever called the "Paraguayan War".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, Commonname criteria difficult to apply here as both alternatives are widely used. Paraguayan War is unambiguous while titles with Triple Alliance could be confused with other triple alliances. In doing my own fact finding, page views for this article hovered around ~200-300 per 30 days under the old title War of the Triple Alliance. After the change to Paraguayan War in 09/11, pages view have jumped at least 10X and as high a 20X in some months. Indicates to me that Paraguayan War is serving the reader well. Editors who impune other editors with COI, POV and other such personal affronts weaken their own arguments immensely and should avoid doing do. This dicussion should always be about the merits of the title, not those discussing those merits. Mike Cline (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

– "War of the Triple Alliance" was the original name of the article. "Paraguayan War" is an ambiguous term that can be confused with other wars which involved Paraguay (Particularly the Paraguayan War of the Independence and the Bolivian-Paraguayan War), and it seems to fit a Brazilian POV on the matter (while not greatly significant, in Spanish and French the conflict is also called "War of the Triple Alliance"). You can read more about this, and the counter-claims, on the discussion above this requested move. MarshalN20 | T a l k 15:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Paraguayan War → War of the Triple Alliance
 * Paraguayan War casualties → War of the Triple Alliance casualties
 * List of battles of the Paraguayan War → List of battles of the War of the Triple Alliance


 * Oppose. See this comment for my reasons to oppose. Also, Amazon UK has 72 books about "Paraguayan War" and only 17 books about "War of the Triple Alliance". By the way, Amazon USA has 61 books about "Paraguayan War" and 17 books about "War of the Triple Alliance". So, this means that the average British and American have far more chance to stumble on a book about the "Paraguayan War", not about the "War of the Triple Alliance". --Lecen (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that you mention Amazon. I've seen the Hutchinson book ("The Paranai") repeated several times, as well as Kohn ("Weep, Grey Bird"), Codman ("Ten Months in Brazil"). There is also non-related books, such as one on capoeira, which I doubt the Paraguayans and Brazilians were practicing in the conflict (though it would have been quite amusing). In other words, the Amazon argument is pretty weak.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, as nominator. -- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, I added on both searches all kind of formats (hardcover, paperbook and kindle). Which means that there are still more books, and on different versions, about the Paraguayan War. P.S.: You can't vote. Read the rules on Requested moves: "Note: Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion." --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making sense. I still don't see how you think Amazon is a reliable stance from which to argue. Regarding the vote, me writing "support" doesn't disqualify the argument.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've stricken it; the nomination is an implied support; adding an additional one is inappropriate, as quoted above. Alarbus (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, follow the nominator.---Ilhador- (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE - this user has been blocked for sockpuppetry in this discussion.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment While I'm not going to just oppose outright - both appear to be accepted and common names for this conflict in English - I think the nominator's basic arguments are faulty. First, "Paraguayan War" is not ambiguous - the term doesn't appear to ever refer to anything else. As mentioned before, "Paraguayan War of Independence" is an uncommon term, and not ambiguous with this title; while the "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" is not called just the "Paraguayan War". Second, the fact that the name "Paraguayan War" appears in sources on Brazil (the examples listed above are not) doesn't mean it reflects a "Brazilian POV", and at any rate it doesn't matter if the term is neutral and widely used, as this one is. Third, it also doesn't matter what the war is called in other languages if it has a common name in this one; this is the English Wikipedia.Cúchullain t/ c 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to oppose. To elaborate on my common, as far as I can tell both names are established and commonly used in English and would make good article titles. However, I reject the nominator's rationale. The idea that the term is ambiguous is incorrect (no other conflict is commonly, if ever, called the "Paraguayan War"), the claim that it's "Brazilian POV" or that there's some Brazilian cabal promoting its use is false on its face and utterly irrelevant anyway, and it doesn't matter in the slightest what this or any subject is called in other languages when it has a common name in English (or two, in this case). What should matter is the one thing the nom doesn't mention: which term is more common. While "War of the Triple Alliance" does appear to be more common in a Google Books search, checking ngram appears to show the terms as about equally common in books published since 1980. As such I see no reason for a move considering that the last request came just a few months ago.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom, I don't believe the current name is POV and such comments are unhelpful. It would more correctly be termed a minority term as used in Brazil.  Google shows the predominant term in English is "War of the Triple Alliance".  I would also request that ngrams are used carefully due to the vulnerability of false positions from the "Paraguayan War of Independence" and "Bolivian-Paraguayan War". May I conclude with a plea to keep the discussion amicable. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe Paraguayan War is better, it is more descriptive of the event, although I agree that both names are used. We just had a vote a few months ago. Do we really need another one so soon? Let's not forget that this started with an inappropriate move by the nominator, he should have respected the recent vote in the talk page, instead he opted to disregard it and move it unilaterally. His vote of support is also inappropriate and is disregarding the rules of Wikipedia, please take it off. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting that User:Lecen comments regularly on your talk page, could you please confirm A) you're not communicating by email and B) you were not canvassed to cast a vote? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Im getting tired of your behavior, Wee Curry Monster. You should watch your words or I will report you. Paulista has contributed on this article before (unlike you) and is a member of the WikiProject Former countries/Empire of Brazil task force. --Lecen (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WCM has a right to ask questions just as Paulista has his own account to answer the questions being asked to him. Your behavior, going around different user talk pages telling them of the move (which can be a sign of canvassing), certainly opens up doubts. On that note, if you have anything to tell me, my talk page is open. I don't enjoy people talking behind my back. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Looks like choose from a worldwide name over a brazilian name Paulomazzeirj (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of -Ilhador-.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I've read about this war plenty of times in off-wiki situations, and I can't remember ever seeing it called anything except the "War of the Triple Alliance".  Besides its WP:COMMON issues, the current name is problematic for its ambiguity.  Judging at least by American sources, the most common name in English sources for an 1840s war straddling the Rio Grande is the "Mexican War", and "Mexican–American War" is far less common, but we use that title (if for no other reason) than that it's unambiguous, while Mexico has fought wars with multiple countries that could be described as their own Mexican Wars.  In the same way, "Paraguayan War" could be used to denote at least the Chaco War.  Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nyttend's justification for his support uses a great example.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is disruptive, following so soon after the RM at the top of the page. As I said in the section prior to this one, Triple Alliance is an ambiguous term. Lecen seems to have covered the arguments in favour of the current title. And FWIW, Women in the Paraguayan War should be included in whatever outcome. Alarbus (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not disruptive as (a) the RM at the top of the page was based on false premises and (b) several editors suggested this RM be presented. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is merely our opinion that the prior request was based on false premises. You should quit banging your own drum at everyone; it's badgering. Alarbus (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Never heard this term before -PRPM- (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of -Ilhador-.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment "Paraguayan War casualties → War of the Triple Alliance casualties" is not found in the movetemplate, while the move template notes a category? (Categories are renamed at WP:CFD with cfr ) 70.24.251.194 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT: This move request has been frauded in an attempt to acchieve the success on the change of this article's title. See Sockpuppet investigations/-Ilhador-. I removed three votes mades by sock puppets. --Lecen (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've restored -Ilhador-, the master's comment. He might not be allowed three says but he's still allowed one. WilliamH (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added back the comments with a strikethrough, which should be preferable to just removing them outright. Future participants and the closing admin need to see the full record.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not a PoV issue. The existing title is unambiguous, non-judgemental, descriptive and reflects usage in English-language sources, which is what Policy requires. If you wish to argue that there are multiple wars that English-language sources title as "Paraguayan War", then suggesting a move to a title such as "Paraguayan War (1864–1870)" might be a better suggestion. There have been several Triple Alliances/Triple Ententes with which English-language readers will be more familiar, so "War of the Triple Alliance" would be both surprising and confusing to many. &bull; Astynax talk 19:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was started in 2005, with the name "War of the Triple Alliance". As far as I know, for 6-7 years not a single discussion came up on this talk page in which any user was confused with the use of the term "Triple Alliance". Even the move done to "Paraguayan War" wasn't based on the concept that "Triple Alliance" was confusing. In fact, this article's talk page (as of recent) is the only place in my life that I have ever heard such a claim.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I would suggest a few other groups may have an opinion of relevance. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably also worth noting that a note about this discussion has been left at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Jenks24 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The /other/ WP:Dramaboard. Alarbus (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This has become ridiculous. Sock puppets, false accusations to opposing editors of canvanssing and now the editor who requested the move has canvanssed Jimbo Wales? Is this a joke? Another editor has asked the opinion of people who probably never read a single paragraph about the war? Because saying "I never heard the name Paraguayan War" reveals how much a person knows about it, which means nothing. --Lecen (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chill ;-) On Jimmy's talk, MarshalN20 states the the 'ambiguity' argument originates with "Brazilian/Portuguese wikipedians". Yet, this issue was raise by admin Andrewa in the first RM and their user page says they're a native English speaker in Sydney. I raised this issue prior to the this RM and I'm a native speaker of English. This is simply more divisiveness seeking to portray things as a Brazilian/Portuguese invasion of the en:wp. Alarbus (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The only drama in this discussion is provided by the same individual(s) over and over again. The above statements are another example of this obnoxious novel. Please, just focus on the task at hand.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The task at hand would seem to now be dealing with your uncivil characterisation of opposition to your position as "obnoxious" (and fiction?) Your incessant badgering is disruptive on its face. Your post to Jimmy's talk page, with about 2500 watchers, is a blatant attempt at canvassing. See Appeals to Jimbo. Alarbus (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From that page, the first things I read: "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." and "Nothing in the page should be construed to discourage you from discussing editing matters directly with me". As you can read on my post at Jimbo's talk page, at no point am I asking for anyone else to bring in their input (nor am I telling Jimbo to agree with me); therefore, to accuse me of "blatant [...] canvassing" is itself an uncivil remark without justification. Now, shall this end or will we get to the Oscars?-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was an attempt at canvassing. You don't go the talk page of Wikipedia's founder for nothing. And I'm sure you'd have come here all jumpy and happy tell everyone had Jimbo Wales supported your view. Sock puppets, canvassing, etc... You're heading the wrong way, MarshalN20. --Lecen (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it is ;> Alarbus (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I went there to ask for Jimbo's opinion, and I have no reason to fear using his talk page. Your accusation of me using sock puppets is really going beyond anything I have heard so far in this discussion. Nonetheless, the situation is funny up to a certain point, so maybe we'll end up with the comedy awards? Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw this... sorry Marshall, but that's a pretty blatant violation of the spirit of WP:CANVASS. It's obvious to anyone that you weren't looking for one editor's opinion, but trying to reach a wide audience, and your phrasing is totally biased and entirely mischaracterizes the discussion. This discussion has become a shambles.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't surprise me that the same group of Wikipedians try to act like bullies in a group. I already provided my defense and explanation. Further adding to my defense is the fact that, up to now, it is WCM's post at the Military History page that has gotten more people in the RM discussion. Finally, regardless of where the people came from (or their vote), they are all providing valid justifications.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not a member of whatever "group" you're talking about, and it doesn't change the fact that your actions were out of line. In contrast, making a neutrally worded note at a directly relevant project page, as Wee Curry Monster has done, is totally appropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - I have never heard the term "Paraguayan War" used outside of Wikipedia; I have heard and seen "War of the Triple Alliance" used widely, and it has never been ambiguous. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds. The page was just moved by consensus a few months ago. We can wait a bit for emotions to cool before opening the can again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The premise used in the argument of that RM was erroneous, and now better information (from both sides) has been provided. Added that September of last year is hardly a few months. This RM is justified.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You really need to not badger everyone. Alarbus (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nothing nice to tell you, so (for the time being) I won't reply to you. ciao.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alarbus, take a look at his contribution log. All he does is argue on two talk pages. He doesn't actually contribute on any article in any positive way. --Lecen (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that MarshalN20 and Wee Curry Monster are having a grand time at Talk:Falkland Islands. A pity, when MN20's time would be so much better spent at Talk:Wario (series). Alarbus (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be wonderful. I can't stand seeing his red name everwhere anymore. He doesn't stop badgering. --Lecen (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also think that the red is a little too flashy. I'm thinking of darkening it a bit more. Anyhow, isn't it great to turn this discussion into a WP:FORUM? Hmmmm.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why my name has been dragged into your little slanging match but please leave me out of it. Thank you.  Wee Curry Monster talk 08:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The premise used in the argument of that RM was erroneous" Fine then. I oppose on procedural grounds and on substantive grounds per my comments in the previous discussion. "Added that September of last year is hardly a few months." I consider three months (Sep 2011–Jan 2012) to be "a few months". I wonder what your definition of "a few" would be? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I count at least four months for September to January. If not counting Mercedonius, my definition of "a few" is anything circa two months.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really like debating minutiae like this? It's less than four months (28 Sep–24 Jan) from the end of the last discussion to the beginning of this one. We can call it four if you like. "Few" is defined by OED as "not many; amounting to a small number." When speaking of months, I think anything under five would fit that definition more than well. But at the end of the day, it's an imprecise idiom that will have a variable meaning depending on the person, so why nit-pick at others' use of it? I think the advice you've received not to "badger" users for every comment would be well taken here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You did "wonder" what my definition of "a few" would be; for the sake of not letting you "wonder," I replied. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The art of the rhetorical rant must be lost on me. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's about never, ever, letting a thread end. Alarbus (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's probably a fairly ineffective tactic, as doing so often makes the closer immediately think "no consensus" when he sees the length of the thread. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not care. Jeez, titles aren't really that important as long the proper redirects are in place. Right? It's clear that there's support for both titles, which are at least in the ballpark of being more or less equal, so either one is OK and why worry about it. When I save this message it'll generate a random number, either 0 or 1, here: . If it's 0 you can count me "Support", if it's 1 count me as "Oppose". Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this. Once in a discussion, I wrote that I flipped a coin to decide, and a zealous editor struck my comment with the justification that he was "pretty sure" there's a guideline somewhere that says if a user uses random methods to decide how to !vote, other users can strike the !vote ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See on that. Alarbus (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it as well. The only problem with it is that it keeps flipping from one number to another (so it makes the validity dubious). It should only pick one at random and stick with it.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 04:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does [[War of the Triple Alliance (Paraguay) help here? The TA will suggest 18th century Europe or something else to most readers, rightly or wrongly. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats a good idea, it would help with disambiguation. It would have my support as an alternative.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't help, as there is no other article of this title. No other war is called the "Paraguayan War". Paraguayan War would just redirect to the new title, so disambiguation is not necessary.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Equally there is no other conflict referred to in English as the "War of the Triple Alliance" and per WP:COMMONNAME this should be preferred to Paraguayan War as its by far more common. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misspoke a bit. There is no other war called EITHER "Paraguayan War" or "War of the Triple Alliance". If we added a parenthetical, the terms would still redirect to the new title, totally negating the purpose of the parenthetical. As to your other point, we've seen very little evidence that either term is "far more common" than the other in English.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I do provide evidence its more common, its on this very page. Wee Curry Monster talk
 * That's a strange idea of why we add parenthetical bits to titles. It will show up in links to the article and searches, giving readers unaware of the TA an idea of what the article is about. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We use words in parentheses for the purpose of disambiguation - ie, when multiple articles have the same title. In this case, there aren't any other articles with these titles. There are no disambiguation pages, no disambig hatnotes. There would be no point in having an article titled War of the Triple Alliance (Paraguay) when War of the Triple Alliance just redirected to it and there were no other articles to distinguish it from.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is (does this really need saying yet again) to remove potential and actual ambiguity in the minds of readers. There are many Triple Alliances and many of them have conducted wars, even if in English no other war is commonly known as the "War of the Triple Alliance". The redirect affects some routes of approach to the article but not others. I'm sure you're not as dim as you're sounding here. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A few editors here claimed that the Chaco War is also known as "Paraguayan War". Look, I know a lot about this subject (my FAs tell that) and I never ever saw a single book call the Chaco War, an early 20th century conflict, "Paraguayan War". On the other hand, the greatest issue with "Triple Alliance" are the countless triple alliances that existed in history. It also bother me a lot seeing those very same editors claiming that they "never heard the name Paraguayan War before". This is the best representation of how little they actually know about the subject being discussed here. Equally troublesome are the baseless accusations of "Brazilian POV" (then why it's easier to find books about "Paraguayan War" on American and British bookstores or why there are thousands of books in English that use the name?). I've seen on this move request sock puppets, canvassing, awful accusations of "same group of Wikipedians try to act like bullies in a group", etc... In fact, the only thing I can actually see here is MarshalN20's bright red signature all across this talk page. --Lecen (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can copy my signature if it catches your attention so much. The Chaco War is a "Paraguayan War", for all intents and purposes, and I have read articles (and books) which call the conflict the "Bolivian-Paraguayan War" (as an alternative name mainly, but still used). Regardless of the many "Triple Alliances" which have existed in history, only one war is widely known as the "War of the Triple Alliance". On the other hand, "Paraguayan War" can account for a variety of conflicts in Paraguay (or involving Paraguay) aside from the War of the Triple Alliance. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, no one has even one provided an example of a source using the proper name "Paraguayan War" to refer to any of the other wars Paraguay has been involved in. The disambiguation argument is a wash.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, per WP:Common Name. Paraguayan war is far too ambiguous and POVish. Britannica labels it Triple Alliance with the disambiguator (South American history) in the search.  Something of that kind should be negotiated here. Walrasiad (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Britannica online adds those parentheticals in their listings for all their articles. Wikipedia does not - we only use parentheticals if there are other articles of that title. That isn't the case here.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Despite the misinformed assertions in the proposal, the term "Paraguayan War" has a long history in English-language scholarship. This may be observed even during the war itself (see Hutchinson, Thomas J. 1868. The Paraná: With Incidents of the Paraguayan War and South American Recollections and many other contemporary accounts). Nor is the term a "Brazilianism"—2 of the most extensive accounts in Spanish (Cárcano, Ramón. 1938-40. Guerra del Paraguay and Efraim Cardozo. 1954. Visperas de la Guerra del Paraguay) designate the conflict as the "Paraguayan War". In recent scholarship, the term "Paraguayan War" is used in repected journals (see Whigham and Potthast. "The Paraguayan Rosetta Stone: New Insights into the Demographics of the Paraguayan War, 1864–1870", Latin American Research Review. Vol. 34. No. 1. 1999.) and in a large body of other published works (see Bethel, Leslie. 1994. The Cambridge History of Latin America; Box, Pelham Horton. 1967. The Origins of the Paraguayan War; Francis, J. Michael. 2006. Iberia and the Americas: Culture, Politics and History; Henderson, James D.; et. al. 2000. A Reference Guide to Latin American History; Hendrik Kraay in Brown, Christopher Leslie; et al. 2006. Arming Slaves: from Classical Times to the Modern Age; Kolinski, Charles. 1965. The Story of the Paraguayan War; Peterson, Harold F. 1964. Argentina and the United States 1810–1960; Whigham, Thomas. 2002. The Paraguayan War: Causes and Early Conduct; among many, many others). The eminent South American historian W.H. Koebel even gave the reasoning for the title: "...South American historians are unanimous in giving the strife which broke out in 1864 the name of the Paraguayan War. This is appropriate enough, for a number of reasons, one of them being that, after the first invading expedition on the part of the Paraguayan armies, the war was fought out on Paraguayan soil." I am appalled at the mischaracterization, disinformation and tactics being used to push this proposal. &bull; Astynax talk 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support, per WP:Common name, which is what governs here. The nonsensical appeal to Amazon is totally irrelevant, due not only to the recentism of such an absurdity, but also to the fact that Amazon notoriously hosts any and all sorts of self-published garbage, partisan nonsense, unscholarly ax-grinding pamphlets, etc. "Paraguayan war" is a Brazilianism I'd never even encountered until today.-- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support (on hold). Note that searches for "Paragyuan war" will get lots of false positive but same is not true for "War of Triple Alliance". In my experience it is the latter which is more commonly used in en lang sources. Volunteer Marek 18:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Astynax. This was brilliant. Finally someone bothered to discuss scholarship. --Lecen (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something I'm willing to be persuaded on and your list of scholarship pushes me in the direction of changing my mind. Honestly, probably the main reason why I supported the move is just that when I took a class on Latin American history as an undergrad this one was consistently called "War of Triple Alliance" - but that's just a data point. The thing is, that a quick look does show that there are also a number of sources which use the WoTA title. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have great respect for the work of Leslie Bethel but, as a Brazilianist, it does not surprise me that he would use the term "Paraguayan War". I am sure that, in Brazil, the war with Paraguay is seen as a unique event. However, the country has also had a war with Bolivia, then there's also the Paraguayan Civil War, and the Paraguay campaign; all titles which can reasonably be called (and have been called) a "Paraguayan War".-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Google Book searches "Paraguayan War" 57.400 hits, "War of the Triple Alliance" 175.000 hits.  War of the Triple Alliance is more than 3 times more prevalaent on basic hits alone.  Of the hits for Paraguayan War, its interesting to note many state "War of the Triple Alliance" also known as "The Paraguayan War", most are books on Brazilian history, and there are a number of false positives eg Paraguayan War Steamer.  If you look objectively at the literature, War of the Triple Alliance is the more common term in the English language.  Paraguayan War is a minority term, used predominantly in Brazil.  I could also list a stack of references and if it came down to it, it would be longer.  Please check it out and make up your own mind. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could also list a stack of references and if it came down to it, it would be longer - Well, in the interest of balance, since Astynax did list several scholarly sources for "Paraguayan War", can you list some of the *key* sources which use WotTA? Not looking for length but more along the lines of "definitive works on the subject". For comparison. Volunteer Marek 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It all depends whether you sort out the Wiki books, unscholarly works and other junk. You might also have chosen to look at more recent publications, in which case War of the Triple Alliance gets 2550 hits (some of which occur in publications which give precedence to the "Paraguayan War" usage), compared to Paraguayan War's 3210 hits. The second search also returns more high-quality references than the first. Regardless, the premises of the proposal are certainly false (i.e., that "'Paraguayan War' is an ambiguous term", "it seems to fit a Brazilian POV", and that "in Spanish and French the conflict is also called 'War of the Triple Alliance'" (I find no returns on "Guerre de l'Alliance Triple", 277 on "Guerre de la triple alliance" and 377 on "Guerre du Paraguay"). While the term "War of the Triple Alliance" has certainly been used in scholarly publications, the term "Paraguayan War" has traditionally been and is still used more in academic work, and I reject the charge that this represents some sort of partisan PoV. Again, if there are other wars in which Paraguay has been involved that are denoted as "Paraguayan War" in sources to the point that another article might be created under that title, the solution would be to add the date range to each title (e.g., "(1864–70)") to denote its duration. &bull; Astynax talk 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure: I would suggest trying this for yourself and experimenting with different means of searching, what is apparent is that "War of the Triple Alliance" is more common. Nor did I say "Paraguayan War" is POV, it is simply the minority term. I suggest such assertions about POV are clearly wrong. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 2 main reasons given for the proposal above were 1) that "'Paraguayan War' is an ambiguous term that can be confused with other wars which involved Paraguay" (false), and 2) that Paraguayan War "seems to fit a Brazilian POV" (false). Nor is it at all "apparent" that "'War of the Triple Alliance' is more common" in scholarly publications, as taking a close look at google's book search results will confirm. &bull; Astynax talk 11:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest it is a Brazillian POV, in fact I make it plain above that I reject such accusations. So please do not direct such an accusation in my direction as it is clearly untrue.  And if you do look at Google book search results, then it does show War of the Triple Alliance is the more common term even if you include the false positives.  Now I have tried to engage in this discussion in a good faith manner and I am frankly getting irritated with the constant bad faith attacks.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support move. Disclaimer: I became aware of this discussion because of the post to WP:WQA regarding Lecen's behavior here, and I've seen similar behaviors from him on other articles.  Yes, it's POV to present history only from a Brazilian point of view, yes, we have guideline pages governing naming conventions where these recurring disputes should be addressed on a global basis instead of edit warring in each article where some want to change a guideline, and as someone who lived in Argentina, yes, it is the War of the Triple Alliance.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, it is not always "War of the Triple Alliance" in Argentina, or any other Spanish-speaking nation—far from it. The historians Ramón Cárcano and Efraim Cardozo I previously cited are both Argentinian, and both use Guerra del Paraguay, as do many, many others. La Guerra del Paraguay has as much, or more, support over a long period of Spanish scholarly writing as does La guerra de la Triple Alianza. And despite your antipathy toward Lecen, no one but you seems to be supporting the proposal on the grounds that there has been an attempt to "present history only from a Brazilian point of view" (that is actually highly offensive). &bull; Astynax talk 11:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing offensive about suggesting that the term "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilianism (ie, Brazilian POV), especially after I provided evidence that justifies the premise. In fact, that debacles your point that "no one but" Sandy is making the POV case (That's at least two of us now). What I find offensive is the constant attempts at making anyone who presents the idea into some sort of xenophobe. Please, WP:AGF.-- MarshalN20  | T al k 14:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have provided no proof that "Paraguayan War" is a "Brazilianism (ie, Brazilian POV)". If you had bothered to look at Spanish language references, where Guerra del Paraguay is very frequently used, you would have never advanced such a claim. &bull; Astynax talk 08:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I provided proof of this claim nearly six days ago, and it can also easily be found right above this talk section. Best regards. "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilianism, and this is not Portuguese Wikipedia.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, you have not provided proof—only statements opining that the term is used or preferred in Brazil. None of the statements say anything about the term not being also in wide use in other nations, which it most certainly is. To repeat, you could easily have confirmed that Guerra del Paraguay ("Paraguayan War") is very widely used in Spanish—not Brazilian Portuguese—scholarly works (it seems to be the preferred term in works published over the last dozen years). You could have looked a bit deeper at the google book results for English language publications to find that most recent scholarship indeed does use "Paraguayan War". Whether or not you succeed in getting a majority of votes to agree with your untenable premises, there are more than sufficient scholarly references (and unbiased at that) to keep the existing title. &bull; Astynax talk 18:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your response amusing. Your "seems to be" and "you could have" position makes no sense at all. The sources clearly support the premise that "Paraguayan War" is Brazilian POV, and that is all (nothing more, nothing less). Regardless of recentism (WP:RECENT), and as noted by Cambalechero, the GoogleBooks results show the term "War of the Triple Alliance" is 3x more widely used than the ambiguous "Paraguayan War". Best of wishes.--19:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- There have been at least half a dozen Triple Alliances in history. This is only one of the wars conducted by three states in alliance.  Whether this has a POV for one South American country, it certainly involves a South American POV.  It is nothing unusual for the same war to have differnet names in differnet countries.  The War of Spanish Succession is Queen Anne's War in USA.  If the present title casues a problem as ambiguous, perhaps we should add dates.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not unusual for a war to have different names in different countries, but when the conflict is known as the "War of the Triple Alliance" in most of the world (including the English-speaking), then obviously someone looking for "War of the Triple Alliance" has some idea of what they seek to find. Somebody looking for World War I, which involved a "Triple Alliance" and "Triple Entente", will look for World War I (not "War of the Triple Alliance").-- MarshalN20  | T al k 16:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strongly support The google book searches provided in the previous move request support "War of the Triple Alliance". The archived discussion says 16.100 for Paraguayan War, 6.080 for War of the Triple Alliance, with links. But I checked those links now, and they are 57.500 and 175.000. Cambalachero (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support move - 'War of the Triple Alliance' is the common English-language name of this conflict and, while 'Paraguayan War' is not an uncommon name, User:MarshalN20 has demonstrated (here) to my satisfaction that the name 'Paraguayan War' leans more to the Brazilian point of view. As far as Google Books hits are concerned, for what they're worth: 'War of the Triple Alliance' gets 173,000 hits compared to 57,000 hits for 'Paraguayan War'. If we exclude works which use both terms, we have 151,000 hits for 'War of the Triple Alliance' and 24,300 hits for 'Paraguayan War'. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose – "Paraguayan War" is widely known in most languages and far more objective than "War of the Triple Alliance". Tonyjeff (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, your edit history shows you are either Brazilian or a Brazilianist . Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop it, your attitude here is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You never assume good faith and you are always spreading misinformation in order to win arguments.   You are not only constantly offending Brazilians but all good editors, remember, in the last vote, see the top of the page, only one editor was Brazilian, the vast majority had nothing to do with Brazil.  It amazes me that no administrator told you to stop this form of argumentation, ad hominem attacks are for the weak and their weak ideas.  You claim to be an historian, I seriously doubt it since you seem to ignore sources and cherry pick what you want.  Paulista01 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever ends up closing the move should know what exactly is going on here. To me it is surprising that a user appears after three months of inactivity to vote on this discussion; however, his edit history demonstrates this user is indeed either Brazilian or a Brazilianist (thus ending the "surprise"). User Astynax above keeps trying to deny that this name "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilianism, while both the evidence and voters (Lecen, Paulista01, Alarbus, Astynax, Tonyjeff) suggest otherwise. I firmly believe in WP:AGF, the same as I firmly believe in WP:COI, or conflict of interest.
 * It's funny that you mention the "last vote", which was essentially rigged by a false Google Books premise. Obviously, the voters in that discussion imagined the Google Books search to be correct (by WP:AGF), but perhaps they should have been a little more careful. This is not the case at this time, where the evidence clearly demonstrates the historic preference over the term "War of the Triple Alliance". Now that solid evidence has been provided in favor of the original title of this article, a surge of Brazilian (or Brazilianist) users come to defend the erroneous title. Portuguese Wikipedia has the name you want, and that's where it should stay. As to your personal attacks: Nice try, they don't affect me, and I won't respond to them. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not surprisingly, you're Peruvian. So what? Tonyjeff (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: First, this has nothing to do with the Brazilian point of view, to claim it is, is pure dishonesty; here and here is proof of it, during the war the New York Times (1869) referred to the war as the Paraguayan War. Second, there are thousands of books published in English that refer to the war as the Paraguayan War, people that claim that the term is not used should go to their library and do some research, they will be surprised.  Let’s keep this discussion honest, after so much low and dirty tactics we need to put passion aside and really look at the sources.   Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it dishonest that you keep denying the evident Brazilianism in the title "Paraguayan War". I am sure that several books call this war the "Paraguayan War" (just as they do the Chaco War and the Paraguayan Civil War), because there are also plenty of books that call World War I names such as the "Great War" and "The War to End All Wars" (neither used as article titles for World War I). I suggest you find another argument. Oh, and here is a source from 1871 using "War of the Triple Alliance" to refer to this conflict:
 * Charles Ames Washburn, The History of Paraguay, Published 1871 : "He was the father of General Gelly y Obes, who subsequently figured in the war of the "Triple Alliance" against Paraguay as the Argentine Minister of War. This was published, as it name imports, weekly, and had the field to itself until 1856, when a Spanish adventurer by the name of Bermejo started another, though not a rival paper, that he called the Eco del Paraguay."
 * Surprise, surprise, surprise. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, you just made my point: not assuming good faith, spreading misinformation and trying to pass as the victim after being the one that made this personal. Well, I am out of this discussion, whatever the result of the move is fine with me, I accept it; just do not say it is a Brazilian point of view, the sources say it is not.  To anybody reading this discussion I say:  do not believe in anybody here, look at the sources and be fair in your vote.  I am out of the discussion for good.  Just remembered an old saying: Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.    Thanks,  Paulista01 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a matter of what you want to accept or not (you don't WP:OWN the article), but rather of displaying the article title which readers will be most familiar with in their search for information. The sources I provided clearly state that "Paraguayan War" is a Brazilianism, and it amazes me you refuse to see such plain evidence. In one sentence you have accused me of three serious wrongdoings, all false personal attacks against me. Now, as you leave, this fool recommends you avoid falling from the soapbox. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.