Jump to content

Talk:United Provinces of the Río de la Plata

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

The article describes the United Provinces as if it were modern day Argentina. An attempt to describe it as the forerunner of Uruguay, Northern Argentina, Southern Bolivia etc. was brusquely reverted. The Argentine Constitution of 1853 claims the United Provinces but this is history, not politics. Heck, even the map on this article shows Uruguay etc as part of the United Provinces. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion will be held at User talk:86.4.27.128#Argentina, as this topic was raised by this user at several pages at once. Cambalachero (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, lets hold it here. All I am asking for is some proper description of the geography and history. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An independent comment. Where I have encountered this in articles, I have usually described the United Provinces in the lede as a precursor state for Argentina, then used the historically correct term for the period in the article itself. Given the United Provinces split into a number of countries and later conquered territory that was annexed into Argentina, this seems the best solution. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to just add a map of the changing shape of the United Provinces but Cambalachero (talk has just reverted it.If he could give a reason I could amend the map or do something constructive. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First: Why paint the Federal League with a different colour? It was not another "country", Artigas never tried to sece from the United Provinces, and in fact rejected proposals to do so.
Second: Please explain the map. Paraguay defeated Manuel Belgrano in 1810/11 and got a "no interference" agreement, and acted similary to an independent country (but only similarily, an actual declaration of independence from Argentina would would come 3 decades later). So, according to the perspective (legalism or pragmatism) Paraguay was still part of the United Provinces those 3 decades, or it was not. What do you say has happened in 1818 to change the territorial status of Paraguay?
Same goes for Bolivia. The third and last Upper Peru campaign was defeated in 1816, and the territory stayed under royalist control. Sucre liberated Bolivia (from the North, working for Bolivar, no Argentine intervention) in 1825. Again, what is supposed to have happened in 1818 to turn Bolivia into a territory of the United Provinces? Cambalachero (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can take Paraguay first. Would you be happy to see Paraguay marked with a slightly different colour as in the new version? Perhaps you could offer some text to explain the shading. The Liga Federal is marked in yellow because the map is in the section of the article on the Liga Federal, it explains the position of the League. If we can agree on Paraguay we can move on to the extent to which the United Provinces expanded into Bolivia, if at all. 86.4.27.128 (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, for reference you might want to have a look at what cartographers believed was the case:

1828 - confirming your statement about Paraguay: http://www.mapsofantiquity.com/store/Antique_Maps_of_Latin_America/South_America/South_America./inventory.pl?id=SAM035 http://www.mapsofantiquity.com/store/Antique_Maps_of_Latin_America/South_America/United_Provinces,_Chili_and_Patagonia./inventory.pl?id=SAM038

La Plata 1812 http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3827~360033:La-Plata--Drawn-under-the-direction?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:Argentina;sort:Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=6&trs=201

1822 http://www.mapsofantiquity.com/store/Antique_Maps_of_Latin_America/South_America/South_America._No._46./inventory.pl?id=SAM066

United Provinces c.1826 http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~36047~1201249:United-Provinces--Drawn-and-Publish?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:Argentina;sort:Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=11&trs=201

The situation c. 1829 http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~21831~670064:Chili,-La-Plata,-and-Bolivia-or-Upp?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:Argentina;sort:Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=33&trs=201 Be quick though, these maps are all antiques up for sale! 86.4.27.128 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for bilingual title?

[edit]

Is there any good reason why the title of this article should be half in English and half in Spanish? I am decidedly not of the "this is the English-language Wikipedia so everything must be in English" tendency. Nevertheless, I cannot see why we have to have this half-and-half solution here. "United Provinces of the River Plate" outgoogles "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata" by more than five to one -- and a very large part of the hits for the latter formulation are from Wikipedia itself or from derivatives of this very article under its current title. We don't talk about the "Battle of the Río de la Plata", and the vast majority of English-speakers with historical, cultural, industrial, and residential links to the area have always known the area, as they still do, as that of the River Plate. -- Picapica (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found 44,000 results for "United provinces of the Río de la Plata" and [18,200 results] for "United Provinces of the River Plate". Cambalachero (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally created at "United Provinces of the River Plate" but later moved to "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". At the time I didn't object, since there are some things too trivial to argue about. I would agree the English language name would be preferrable on the en.wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Provinces of the Río de la Plata → United Provinces of the River Plate – Why a bilingual title? As @Wee Curry Monster: said above, the article was originally created at "United Provinces of the River Plate". The English language name would be preferrable on the en.wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT. 186.6.63.80 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support On the English wikipedia the WP:COMMON name would be preferrable, which is the United Provinces of the River Plate. Can I ask that comments are restricted to the merits of the proposal. WCMemail 22:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of WP:UCN, and WP:USEENGLISH. Regardless of debate regarding how to refer to the river in modern times across various dialects, this entity was always known in English as "United Provinces of the River Plate". This is demonstrated by Ngrams. Insofar as the Ngram is concerned, I've had to shorten the search terms, as they only accept five words per term. However, the short forms logically could not refer to anything else, and merely omit the surrounding words. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The English Wikipedia" with bilingual titles and the "good faith"

[edit]

RGloucester, your "demonstration" in Ngram was innacurate. First: You've included a diacritical mark in search terms (English speaker really uses "áéíóú´"?). It's not the same. Second: It's too generic, You've searched "Río de", not "Rio de la". My own search. And third: Río de la Plata is not a river (old mistake), is an Estuary.

Personally, English wikipedia could be consistently and Neutral. I don't see Wee Curry Monster good faith claim in Governorate of the Río de la Plata, Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, Río de la Plata or Rio de Janeiro. It's curious to see spanglish or porglish title names at "The English Wikipedia". And is curious to see why this article has been renamed in 2006. Now forgotten.

Of course, —Britannica— prefers to write content, not to waste time in language wars.--GM83 (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 9 November 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to stable title – It obvious that’s there is a mixed consensus on this evidence submitted on common name by both those supporting "River Plate" and those supporting "Rio de la Plata" is conflicted and in various ways disputed. All that said, the September RM was poorly attended and the move to "River Plate", although not inconsistent with the positions of the two participants, did change a long standing (2007?-2015) title of Rio de la Plata. No objections to another RM in future months, but it should be whether or not we should change from a long-standing title to a new one Wikipedia:TITLECHANGES (Rio de la Plata >> River Plate) not the other way round. Mike Cline (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


United Provinces of the River Plate → United Provinces of the Río de la Plata – WP:MODERNPLACENAME WP:COMMONNAME.

Google Books: United Provinces of the Río de la Plata search: 4,400 results, United Provinces of the River Plate search: 2,120 results.

U.S Library of Congress search, Encyclopædia Britannica map

Teatry between Great Britain and United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, 1825

Rio de la Plata gov.uk search: 3,280 results River Plate gov.uk search: 228 results?

United Provinces supersedes Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (1776) and earlier Governorate of the Río de la Plata (1549) in the Spanish Empire (Estuary and rivers explored by Sebastian Cabot in 1526). Wikipedia uses "Rio de la Plata" when it was from Spanish Empire but changes name to federation that existed for twenty years?. Sir Francis Drake named "River Plate" during his circumnavigation of the world (1580 = WP:MODERNPLACENAME ?). Wikipedia had discussions about "The River Plate" vs. "Rio de la Plata", resulting in two polls, closing as "Rio de la Plata". "While some people may see this as against the "use English" policy, the overwhelming majority view is that the commonly-used named for this river, and thus the correct one to use given the "use common names" policy, is Río de la Plata." (28 January 2006). Polytoop (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Biblioworm 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Opppose Overwhelming use in the English language is the River Plate. This is the English Wikipedia where we should use the English language. Coming so soon after the recent move and insistence on the Spanish name seems WP:POINTy. WCMemail 13:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Regardless of debate regarding how to refer to the river in modern times across various dialects, this entity was always known in English as "United Provinces of the River Plate". This is demonstrated by Ngrams. Insofar as the Ngram is concerned, I've had to shorten the search terms, as they only accept five words per term. However, the short forms logically could not refer to anything else, and merely omit the surrounding words. WP:UCN and WP:USEENGLISH apply. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the subject is a historical geopolitical entity. For that reason, historical books are very relevant. We are not talking about geography or tourism here. RGloucester — ☎ 23:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:WIAN. Diplomatic documents from UK and US, and ancient maps does not include "River Plate" as name of the entity (and before). Sir Woodbine Parish apparently introduced "Rio de la Plata" name [1]. Maybe some people uses "River Plate" naming entities but US Congress and UK goverment signed diplomatic documents with "United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata". Do not confuse a legal entity with a river. "It is important that the sources be from the appropriate period, namely, the modern era for current names, or the relevant historical period for historical names". --GM83 (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By the evidence given, the proposed title is more WP:COMMON in English-language sources.--Cúchullain t/c 16:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as User:RGloucester's Ngram showed, while "Rio de la Plata" may now be the common name of the still-existing river for some inexplicable reason, "United Provinces of the River Plate" is still the most common name of the no longer existing nation. Google search results show 22,200 results for "United Provinces of the River Plate" and only 13600 for ""United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata"". This is a ratio of approximately 5:3 in favor of the name "United Provinces of the River Plate". Bobby Martnen (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I clicked on those search links you gave, I got quite different results. So here it is again, (without the unnecessary stuff in the url though that does not make any difference for me)- River Plate 5350 hits, Rio de la Plata 12600 hits. The ratio I get is is the reverse of yours, and more. The book search produces similar results. Any explanation? Imc (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And about this statement you make - while "Rio de la Plata" may now be the common name of the still-existing river for some inexplicable reason - what on earth is inexplicable about it? Imc (talk)
  • Worth noting that hits on Rio de la Plata are very different from hits on "Rio de la Plata", that small change in the Ngram produces wildly different results [2]. It would appear that without parentheses there are a lot of false positives. Ngrams should always be used with great care. WCMemail 15:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster, please note that ngrams doesn't work that way. Quotes are not needed, nor used as you think. Try it out and see how it works. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I originally closed this as moved, without remembering that I participated a month ago. I've now restored it to its previous title and reopened the RM. Now that that's done, I have a few more comments on the evidence:
This is a discussion about the terms "United Provinces of the River Plate" vs. "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata", not River Plate/Rio de la Plata in general. So far, the nominator's evidence via Google Books and other sources appears to show that "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata" is more common in English sources.
Secondly, some of the Ngram results above are faulty. Ngrams don't need parentheses, for one thing. However, small details can give very different results. So while "Provinces of the Río" - with an accent - comes in lower, "Provinces of the Rio" sans accent is higher than "Provinces of the River Plate". That tracks with the nom's Google Books returns showing "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata" to be the more common version. We've seen nothing else that challenges the evidence behind that claim.
--Cúchullain t/c 19:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to relist this, for the 5th (or is it 6th) time, in the hope of finally getting this settled could we please stop with the emotive posturing. I see very little logical argument for the move and a lot of emotive posturing here about the Spanish name and bad faith accusations against those favouring the English language version. Alleging other editors are trying to mislead with Ngrams is not helpful. As I said above Ngrams should be used with great care. However, the claim that in the English language, the Spanish spelling is predominant doesn't add up. Ngrams can be formulated to give this impression but if you use the advanced features of Ngram to search for specific phrases, this shows at best the two usages are equal [3]. The results are also remarkably consistent by English variation [4],[5]. Producing a comparative Ngram to show which of the two phrases is more common, shows in modern usage shows little difference [6] but in American English the Rio de la Plata is slightly more common [7] but in British English River Plate predominates [8]. Trying the same thing with River Plate v Rio de la Plata shows that there is little difference overall [9], in American English a slight favouring of the Spanish name [10] but in British English River Plate predominant [11]. Equally searching for the exact phrase in Google books shows United Provinces of the River Plate to be 5 times more common [12],[13]. The assertion that Ngrams are picking up on old history books is not sustainable, the first hit in a specific name search is from 2002 - many of the top 10 are modern works. Even at 5 times more common, it should not be forgotten that many English language works will also give the Spanish equivalent producing a false positive. WCMemail 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS for those suggesting you can't use parentheses in Ngrams, I suggest you read up on the advances uses - you can. WCMemail 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say or imply that anyone is intentionally being misleading, however, several of the Ngram results that have been given are faulty for the reasons stated above. As far as "emotive posturing", that's good advice - for both sides of the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You presume, wrongly as it happens, that I was referring to yourself Cuchullain. I deliberately did not name anyone for a reason, the proposal should be discussed on merit not personalities. WCMemail 19:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: seriously, @Wee Curry Monster, in November "those favouring the English language version" use Ngrams, but in January 2016: "It would appear that without parentheses there are a lot of false positives. Ngrams should always be used with great care" " The assertion that Ngrams are picking up on old history books is not sustainable, the first hit in a specific name search is from 2002" ???. Ngrams is your best justification and attacks it.
I made this nomination because I'm surprised that United Kingdom government uses "Rio de la Plata" referring to Uruguay today. Why accuse of favoring the "spanish name"? (WCM dixit). This is a failed federation 200 years ago, so you can find this in the history books with that name. WP:MODERNPLACENAME, as I said in November. --Polytoop (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content not contributors, sadly if all you can do is attack the person your argument has no merit. The irony of citing WP:MODERNPLACENAME for a failed federation from 200 years ago says it all. WCMemail 20:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add the FCO document you refer to is historical and no one is arguing that both names weren't used but this is the English wikipedia after all and the River Plate is the predominant name used in British English. WCMemail 20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I strongly dislike this trend within title proposals where "number of hits" are preferable. At the end, the real point is lost: what is the name most used within historiography? In this particular case, the name would be "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". The most basic and widely used source employed in English speaking universities for Latin America history is the massive "The Cambridge History of Latin America". Selected chapters were later published as standalone books, such as "Argentina since Independence". The name used is "Río de la Plata", and not "River Plate", as can be seen here and here. What is another basic published source on early independent Argentina? John Lynch's famed biography of Rosas. Both the first edition and the second edition employ "Río de la Plata". I could go and on here, but I think I made my point. Also, it's really odd to have "United Provinces of the River Plate" along with Governorate of the Río de la Plata and the far more famous Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Consistency is the key here. --Lecen (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Lecen, thats one source. The argument for moving it is based on the number of hits. In reality if you do analyse the usage objectively there isn't a strong argument for using the Spanish name. WCMemail 20:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flag

[edit]

User:Havsjö has said reverted my edit of the United Provinces' flag, claiming that the flag of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata that is in this article has to be the one from 1820-1829, yet the flag that it's shown is the current flag of Argentina. I have to say that according to [14] and [15] the civil flag is the 1812-1818 Flag of Macha and that the war flag is a version of the current flag with different dimentions; meaning that the flag used in that time was the Flag of Mancha. I request that the flag be changed to [16] or the war flag of 1820-1829 Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Provinces_of_the_Río_de_la_Plata&oldid=1235266479"