Talk:United Provinces of the Río de la Plata/Archive 1

It's probably not a good idea to keep this article. The little information that can be found here is (or should be) already included in other, more general articles. Otherwise it's almost a dictionary definition. I'd say redirect this to Argentina, exactly like Argentine Confederation. Or maybe make a separate article about all the names that Argentina has had (that is more than a list, of course). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

no redirect to Argentina. if someone quickly wants to know what it means this is annoying. but maybe the three can get one article as you said. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

which names was used longest? confed? or UP of Rio de la plata? this should get the (mini-) article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think PUSA was a one time thing. PURP was traditional for several years until a Constitution was agreed to. Confederación Argentina has a different connotation as it was the name used by the "the rest" during Buenos Aires Province split. Ejrrjs | What? 11:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I created Origin and history of the name of Argentina. please, check it out. Mariano (t/c) 12:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Please explain "Silver River." The river is never so called in English; it's called either by its Spanish name or else River Plate. - Montréalais 05:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

River Plate is becoming less and less common, especially ammong academics; mostly because it makes no sense. Rio de la Plata means River of Silver (which too makes no sense, because it is not a RIVER!) Anglophones used River Plate as a false cognate. In academic writing say River Plate is archaic; while saying Silver River is a bit arcane, it is not wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.68.171 (talk • contribs)


 * Of course it's wrong! - River Plate is not a translation. It's the English name of the River that has been in use since the time of Francis Drake. It is the English name in the same way the Mount Everest is the English name of Sagarmatha. "United Provinces of the Silver River" gets precisely two Google hits. It is not a common name and breaks Wikipedias policy on naming, so I'm moving it back. Jooler 15:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's rather common, when translating Spanish place names into English, to retain the individual Spanish words rather than translating them. That's why I live in "La Plata County, Colorado" rather than "Silver County, Reddish Color". Being bilingual, it makes me cringe to see the false cognate plate (the word is plato), but there seems to be some sort of consensus for it (238 Google hits in quotes).


 * An alternate I ran across that seems almost as acceptable (168 hits in quotes) is "United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata" which roundly beat out my preferred "United Provinces of the La Plata River" (2 hits). It's funny how the Rio de la Plata (which flows into the ocean between two Spanish-speaking countries, BTW) gets twisted by Anglophones into "River Plate" whilst the river that gave the (English-speaking) county I live in its name is always "the La Plata River." Rathersane 03:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's information about this naming issue (English v. Spanish) on the Wikipedia page for Rio de la Plata. 8:14, 30 September, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnolan (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

United PRovinces of the river plate
United PRovinces of the river plate is one of the official argentine's name. so, why isn't it included here?
 * Indeed "United Provinces of the River Plate" is a more apt name. Opinions? -- Alexf42 12:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As I was taught in my Argentine school, the State of Argentina was founded at the Declaration of Independency, july 9 1816. The Argentina had the name of United Provinces of the River Plate. As the Constitution of 1853 states, Argentina is United Provinces of the River Plate, and conserves the name. The Constitution reorganized the nation, but did not created it, as the Constitution of France did not created France. Anybody pretending that the United Provinces of the River Plate did not exist, is just vandalizing the Wikipedia, and has no fundamentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuillermoMarraco (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

About the article United Provinces of South America, after intervention of the user IANVS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Provinces_of_South_America&oldid=394039898)

The start year is the one of the Argentine Constitution, 1816. I added the undeniable reference to the Argentine Declaration of Independence on the official Argentine Ministry of Education website http://www.me.gov.ar/efeme/9dejulio/index.html, the non disputed, one and only document that founded the object of this article. No state or region named United Provinces of South America existed previously. Only the Viceroyalty of River Plate officially existed before July 9 1816.

As the article correctly states, the name United Provinces of South America was later replaced by the name United Provinces of River Plate, the official name of Argentina today, and name unofficially used since 1810 (Argentine Constitution), although illegally before 1816. As I stated on the discussion, which you ignored before editing, Argentina, the state whose existence initiated at his Declaration of Independency, still exists today, and is incorrect, and unfounded to state that it stopped existing in any year. Civil wars did not mean that Argentina stopped his existence.

The article is not, as you stated on your Edit Summary, about an historical period, but about the state United Provinces of South America, which is the same state that today's Argentina.

You removed, -and it looks like vandalism-, two official, essential, valid references, and put incorrect, unsourced information.

Not only you removed two valid references, but your edition replacing Argentine Declaration of Independence for May Revolution, is simply false information, because in May Revolution the revolutionaries swore loyalty to the King of Spain. They revolted against French power. Nobody put doubt about the validity of the Viceroyalty as the existing state. The use of the name United Provinces of River Plate, was informal, and only as project (between 1810-1816), who materialized only after the Declaration of Independency.

If you removes my edition, you are obligated to fundament it with document references. For that reason, I added the templates to your unfounded dates.

-Also the interventions of editors who undid my edition contradict the Argentine Declaration of Independency, so I added the template, because they contradict the article about the Declaration. -It also contradicts the article May revolution, who states: "The May Revolution is considered the starting point of the Argentine War of Independence, although no formal declaration of independence was issued at the time, and the Primera Junta continued to govern in the name of the deposed king Ferdinand VII". In other words, 1810 as initial date is false.

-The article states incorrectly that Bolivia belonged to this state. Is false because Bolivia, like Chile or Brazil, never integrated the United Provinces of South America, despite owning today some former territory of the Viceroyalty of River Plate. So this article contradicts the article about Bolivia.

- This article also contradicts the Spanish version of the article: Provincias Unidas en Sud América

The citation of the Argentine Constitution is not identical the official one; for that reason, I corrected it and linked a reference to the official Argentine Government site here: http://www.argentina.gov.ar/argentina/portal/documentos/constitucion_ingles.pdf You undid it, so I added this template

My reversion does not break the WP:3RR policy, because is a reverting of obvious vandalism, and biased, unsourced, contentious material, which was done ignoring any previous discussion of the article. No other editor intended to discuss the article previous to any modification.

Anybody who undid my edits failed to discuss the modifications before editing. GuillermoMarraco (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer
1st: There was a State that did not officially declare independence until 1816. It was variously called United Provinces of the Río de la Plata and United Provinces of South America (this is the official designation by the 1819 constitution). This article aspires to portrait this historical formation, that was different from the previous Viceroyalty and from the subsequent Argentine Confederation. This is not to deny that the Argentine Republic did declare its independence in 1816.

2nd: In the Argentina article it is already stated that Argentina went through succesive formations and names, that its independence was declared in 1816 and that constitutionally, the name United Provinces of the Río de la Plata is valid for the Argentine Republic. There is no contradiction here.

3rd: This article does mention that the name "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata" is, officially, one of the names of the current Argentine Republic, by the Constitution. This very fact does not make the historical 1810-1831 State identical to the modern Argentine Republic. This article does not aspire to deny that Argentina declared independence in 1816, but to better explain this particular period.

In sum: all your allegations are valid, except from /Please understand the fact that this is an article about a historical period (1810-1831) when the Argentine State had some specific configurations. The article that covers this period of time is called "United Provinces of South America" (alternatively, "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata"), because of the two most common names this State had during this period (it was also called "Argentine Republic in 1826-27). The starting date is 1810, when the colonial State was rejected in Buenos Aires. The end date given is 1831 when the Pacto Federal established a rather new configuration for the State.

I'm replacing your multiple tags with just one tag that resumes your whole argument: the article accuracy is disputed. Salut, -- IANVS (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

PS - Some allegation of yours are, indeed, invalid: 1) Argentina officially considers the goverments originated in the May Revolution as legitimate independent governments, predecessors of modern Argentina. 2) Bolivian Provinces did took part of the Asamblea del Año XIII. Some of them even signed the 1816 Declaration of Independence (while some modern Argentine Provinces did not). 3) Per WP rules, Wikipedia is not a valid source. 4) You were not reverting vandalism, but a longstanding consensual version of the article. 5) Your treatment and understanding of the Argentine Declaration of Independence seems original research on a WP:Primary source

Salut, --IANVS (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, some of the allegations are not valid. One, is that in 1810 there was a will not to keep being a viceroyalty (the name was still used sometimes, but just by custom). There are two historical perspectives in this. One is the "Mask of Ferdinand VII", which says that the May Revolution was independentist but concealed the revolutionary ideas to prevent counter-attacks. The other is that their declared loyalty to the king was genuine, and that the revolution became independentist afterwards. This can be confusing, because if they didn't want to end being Spanish, why make a revolution at all, why where patriots and royalists fighting about? Under this second perspective, what the patriots wanted was to end being a viceroyalty and be recognized instead as Spanish provinces, just like the ones in Europe. The book I included in the references has a detailed history about the things said and done by both the governments in Buenos Aires and the Spanish Juntas about this. Surely you remember that part of the Open Cabildo when bishop Benito Lue y Riega says that even a tiny island of Spain had authority over all of America, do you? Well, it seems that Bishop Lue was not up to the news: the Americas had already been recognized as equal provinces and allowed in the Assembly that wrote the Constitution, but the disputes continued because the Americas did not a representation proportonal to their population (or something like that, most details were new to me and I have to read the book some more times). But in short, in either case the 1810 revolutionaries were seeking to end the viceroyalty and replace it with something else.


 * And second, yes, Bolivia was part of the United provinces. We may cite details on how was the zone seized by both sides at different times, but a single detail says it all: the Congress of Tucumán, the one that declared independence, had deputees from provinces that are now part of Bolivia.


 * Finally, I want to request to try to avoid accusing each others of vandalism, edit warring, adding wrong information or other such strong things. Try to take it calm, and just try to clarify things, not to "beat" the others about who has greater knowledge of history. And an advise, when you need to clarify something, check books or the primary sources. Checking articles in wikipedia has a risk, if the article is mistaken at some point, we would carry the mistake all around. MBelgrano (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To IANVS:

“1st: There was a State that did not officially declare independence until 1816. It was variously called United Provinces of the Río de la Plata and United Provinces of South America (this is the official designation by the 1819 constitution). This article aspires to portrait this historical formation, that was different from the previous Viceroyalty and from the subsequent Argentine Confederation. This is not to deny that the Argentine Republic did declare its independence in 1816.”

The name United Provinces of South America is original in the declaration of Independency. You have no basis to declare that it existed under that name before 1816.

“2nd: In the Argentina article it is already stated that Argentina went through succesive formations and names, that its independence was declared in 1816 and that constitutionally, the name United Provinces of the Río de la Plata is valid for the Argentine Republic. There is no contradiction here.”

This article is pretending that a state different from Argentina existed before 1831, so it contradict the Argentina article, and has no fundamentation.

“3rd: This article does mention that the name "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata" is, officially, one of the names of the current Argentine Republic, by the Constitution. This very fact does not make the historical 1810-1831 State identical to the modern Argentine Republic. This article does not aspire to deny that Argentina declared independence in 1816, but to better explain this particular period.”

Not being identical does not mean that the state ended his existence in 1831.

“...Please understand the fact that this is an article about a historical period (1810-1831) when the Argentine State had some specific configurations.”

It’s false. The name of the article does not warn about being only an historical period of a state, but about the state itself. The dating 1810-1831 misleads the reader to believe that he is reading about a temporary nation, different of Argentina.

No place on the article clearly explains that is about an historical period of Argentina, but intentionally misleads the reader in to thinking otherwise.

I would accept if the explicit text says that is an historical period of Argentina, and that does not mean that Argentina is a different state.

“The article that covers this period of time is called "United Provinces of South America" (alternatively, "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata"), because of the two most common names this State had during this period (it was also called "Argentine Republic in 1826-27). The starting date is 1810, when the colonial State was rejected in Buenos Aires. The end date given is 1831 when the Pacto Federal established a rather new configuration for the State.”

That is far from being clear on the article. A reconfiguration does not mean that Argentina did not existed previously.

“I'm replacing your multiple tags with just one tag that resumes your whole argument: the article accuracy is disputed.”

Not only the article accuracy is disputed, but you deleted valid tags about what needed citation. You also deleted two valid and essential references. You also deleted various tag warning that the citation of the Argentine Constitution is not identical to the source. And you deleted templates warning that the article is in conflict with other Wikipedia articles, so you are hindering the depuration of Wikipedia.

“PS - Some allegation of yours are, indeed, invalid: 1) Argentina officially considers the goverments originated in the May Revolution as legitimate independent governments, predecessors of modern Argentina.”

Stating "Argentina officially considers..." witouth citing sources has no validity.

May revolution initiated self government, but not the existence of an official independent state. You do not have valid justification.

Your statement is Original Research.

“2) Bolivian Provinces did took part of the Asamblea del Año XIII. Some of them even signed the 1816 Declaration of Independence (while some modern Argentine Provinces did not).”

It does not mean that Bolivia secessioned from Argentina, but only some provinces. The article states that Bolivia secessioned from the Viceroyalty of River Plate, when in fact after the revolt of 1809, Bolivia was reassigned to another Viceroyalty. Is not clear, and confusing.

“3) Per WP rules, Wikipedia is not a valid source.”

My sources are the Argentine Constitution, and the Argentine Declaration of Independency. I referenced the official documents in Argentine government web sites. Your pretention that my sources are Wikipedia is simply false and offensive, because you pretend to discredit my edition with no basis. ¿What are your sources?

“4) You were not reverting vandalism, but a longstanding consensual version of the article.”

The earliest version of this article, who mention dates, says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Provinces_of_South_America&oldid=124735450

“''Provincias Unidas en Sudamérica[1] or Provincias Unidas de Sudamérica[2], was the first name that Argentina use when became independent from spain in 1816. The name was used until the 1826 constitution, when the name República Argentina was first time used.''”

If "consensus" has no documental fundamentation, is invalid, and breaks the rules of Wikipedia.

There is no fundamentation to state that Provincias Unidas en Sudamérica existed as an independent state before July 9 1816. If the date 1810 has another meaning, it should be clear, and not missleading.

“5) Your treatment and understanding of the Argentine Declaration of Independence seems original research on a WP:Primary source”

That’s your personal opinion. You can’t base on it to edit Wikipedia. GuillermoMarraco (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I must point that the constitution, as a reference, is incomplete. By the time of the 1826 constitution, the "United provinces..." name was not used anymore, and the country is refered only as the Argentine nation. The Federal Pact does not use that name either. The 1853 constitution granted the "United provinces of the Río de la Plata" the status of equally vald name for the nation, but just as an honorary thing, the name was not used anymore at that point nor had any special status.


 * And the Bolivian provinces that revolted in 1809 were not reassigned to another viceroyalty: the rebellions were defeated, and everything returned back to normal. I don't remember the details now, but I think that some bolivian provinces returned to the Viceroyalty of Peru when they were recaptured by royalists during the war of independence (wich was later, not yet in 109) MBelgrano (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Many days passed and nobody had provided any evidence of: -Existence of United Provinces of South America previous of 1816 declaration of Independency of United Provinces of South America. -End of existence of the state. -Why a non literal cite of the official Argentine Constitution in English is allowed to remain, and why the essential references about the declaration of independency and Argentine Constitution had being deleted. -Any explanation on why some editors pretend to be an article about only a period of a state. Meanwhile the same editors are responsible to setting a final ending date for the state, and there is no hint in the article text about being only an article about a historical period of the state instead of the entire history of the state. GuillermoMarraco (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@MBelgrano "The 1853 constitution granted the "United provinces of the Río de la Plata" the status of equally vald name for the nation, but just as an honorary thing, the name was not used anymore at that point nor had any special status."

Far from being just an “honorary thing”, the use of the name have implications as responsibility from returning loans contracted from England in name of United States of South America. It means recognition of obligations and assumption of rights. States are referenced from his name, so use of a name is a declaration of identity. The use of the name on the argentine Constitution undeniably declares that is the same state, and no other state. GuillermoMarraco (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice conspiracy theory... that falls downs in pieces after a very simple checking. Urquiza did not restore any old debt, the debt was still vigent during all the period between Rivadavia and the post-Caseros Argentina. From time to time it was not being paid, such as during the blockades, but it has never been rejected. MBelgrano (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@MBelgrano 1-What “conspiracy”? Your statement makes nonsense. 2-Any debt contracted with England before 1853 Constitution was paid by Argentina, so what is your point?GuillermoMarraco (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You said that the United Provinces were recognized as a name of Argentina in order to keep paying former loans. That is incorrect, as those loans were still being payed anyway, the 1853 constitution did not change anything about that. Even more: when Rivadavia took the Baring Brothers loan, the country was not named as United Provinces anymore, so the whole thing is null MBelgrano (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@MBelgrano I never said that. Don't put words on my mouth. I only provided an example of rigths and obligations.GuillermoMarraco (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Map
I am removing the map at the bottom of the article because it is inaccurate - specifically as regards the Falkland Islands. Per the sources given at Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, there was no permanent settlement on the Falkland Islands in 1816 or indeed at any point between 1811 and 1829, and the map seems to imply that there was. The fact that there is a current dispute doesn't mean we have to rewrite history to take any account of it.

In any case, the map has lots of numbers on it which don't seem to relate to anything in the article or on the image description. Pfainuk talk 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MY dear friend, It doesn't matter whether there was a settlement or not on the islands. According to International public law statements, all the territory rights that belonged to Spain passed to Argentina, and UK took them illegally, considering that it was recognized as part of UP of Río de La Plata, not just in the map. That's why the resolution No. 2065 NATO resolution says this territory is in dispute. I recommend you to read about International public law, not just considering this case, but to inform yourself and then apply it to the particular case, Yours, Juan Pablo Luque —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luquejp (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that United Provinces of the River Plate owned the islands in 1810 (or 1816), because Britain signed the treaty "Nookta convention", recognizing that the islands were Spanish property. The King of Spain assigned the islands as a Buenos Aires dependency. The British crown recognized the sovereignty of territories, as consequence of the King of Spain ruling, when the British crown repeatedly mediated between Chile and Argentina, on territorial disputes, and decided that the laws of the Spanish crown previous of the declaration of independency decides what country is sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuillermoMarraco (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Western Missions to Brazil?
Sorry to bother, I usually do not write in Argentine-related articles, but I'like to make a comment. It is said that the Western Missions were annexed by Brazil after the Argentina-Brazil War. That is incorrect. It was in fact recognized as part of the Portuguese Empire by the cabildo of Montevideo when the Portuguese conquered the Eastern Band and renamed it Cisplatina in 1821. Later, after the 1851 treaty of alliance against Rosas, the Uruguayan government aknowledged the cabildo`s decision. --Lecen (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Misiones was under dispute at the war from the Argentine/United Provinces POV, as no cession was recognized until after the 1828 Montevideo Treaty. So, from this POV, the recognition is understood as a cession to Brazil, not to the Portuguese Empire. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: Page moved.-- Hadal (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

United Provinces of South America → United Provinces of the Río de la Plata – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC) What about renaming this article as "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". If it is meant to be an article on the historical period between the may revolution and the federal pact, as discussed in the previous thread, the state (recognized or not) between the viceroyalty and the confederation, then that name would be better. It was more widely used, and during all the period. The United Provinces of South America were more a proposed state than a real (recognized or de-facto) state, and the 1819 constitution never really came into force. Even the Congress of Tucumán used this name in occasions, such as in the 1817 Manifiesto que hace a las naciones el Congreso General Constituyente de las Provincias Unidas del Río de La Plata sobre el Tratamiento y Crueldades que ha Sufrido de los Españoles y Motivado la Declaración de su Independencia.

At a later stage of development, we may have articles on both entities (the proposed state, and the state that existed), but for now, we should settle for the most common name Cambalachero (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm the former user MBelgrano, I have renamed my account. I'm the same user than the one in some of the messages above Cambalachero (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, per nom. Rennell435 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 11:44, 28 May 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.

Buenos Aires Capital
I was under the impression that for a period in the late 1820s that Buenos Aires broke away from the confederation as the Republic of Buenos Aires, for that period it was no longer the capital city. Am I incorrect? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are thinking about the State of Buenos Aires, which did temporarily broke away from the Confederation; but that took place half a century later. Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No I was thinking about the Government preceding Roca. But is that early 1830s. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. That's the 1880 insurrection, which attempted to secede Buenos Aires (again) but failed. That's even later than the State of Buenos Aires, which was already reincorporated in Argentina since some time ago. See some details at Federalization of Buenos Aires, there's no article on the insurrection yet Cambalachero (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The republic of Buenos Aires broke away in 1826 and was conquered after a couple of years.86.4.27.128 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)