User talk:Ttocserp/Siege of Humaitá

Welcome Torimem[edit]

This is our joint userspace.

The next thing to do is to get an approximate list of sources. Ones that come to mind are: Doratioto Maldita Guerra; Whigham The Road to Armageddon; Tasso Fragoso; Hooker. Let's go? Ttocserp 23:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I have the latest physical edition of Doratioto's Maldita Guerra. Torimem (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I have it in Spanish only. My Portuguese is only 50%!Ttocserp 23:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have bought the Kindle edition today. Your physical edition will gives us the pagination.Ttocserp 20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send me your email, please. I'll get back to the map tomorrow, but as you pointed out it seems inaccurate. I had thought since Gonçalves used the map in his article he had checked it for any inconsistencies. Torimem (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't send my email without disclosing it publicly, which I am rather reluctant to do. On most user talk pages (including this one) there is an option along the left (under Tools) called "Email this user". However it is not on your user talk page because you must have disabled it. You could contact me by clicking on "Email this user", if you wish. 09:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Ttocserp

Gonçalvez map[edit]

Thank you for the interesting article Gonçalves 2018. But his map on p.27 cites as his source -- Wikipedia! Not a reliable source. I have long thought this map is misleading.

If you go to the source Jourdan 1871 and click on panel 6 you will get a more accurate map. Jourdan as you know was on the Commissâo de Engenheiros and a smart man. That's the official map surveyed at their leisure after the fighting was over. If you enlarge this map, please look to the northeast of Humaitá fortress, at FORTE DO ESTABELECIMENTO. (It was called Cierva redoubt by the Paraguayans.)

Thompson 1869 p.244:

With a view of mystifying the enemy [López] had a redoubt made at Cierva, 3,500 yards to the north of Humaitá, and armed with nine fieldpieces; it was garrisoned with about 500 men, under the command of Major Olabarrieta. The enemy naturally supposed this was an important point... Such, however, was not the case, as the position was no use to López.

Doratioto 2002, p.309:

Mientras tanto, el 19 de febrero Caxias ordenó el ataque al Establecimiento creyendo que se trataba de un posición fortificada que los paraguayos denominaban Cierva y que se suponía que estaba localizada en las márgenes del río. El plan era tomar ese punto, para que desde allí la escuadra pudiera embarcar as la tropas aliadas y transportarlas a la otra margen, en el Chaco. Si los aliados ocupaban las dos márgenes, Humaitá quedaría totalmente sitiada. Sin embargo, durante la toma de Establecimiento se descubrió que la posición no estaba sobre las márgenes del Paraguay. Los aliados habían pensado lo contrario debido a un error que cometieron los ingenieros brasileños durante el reconocimiento, cuando avistaron a lo lejos una capa de agua que en realidad era la laguna Cierva, ubicada a dos kilómetros del río ...

The Jourdan map confirms Establecimiento was not on the banks of the river Paraguay (as shown in Gonçalves' map, wrongly), but on the shores of a large lake. Thus thousands of brave men died (Thompson, 1869, 250-1) uselessly taking this position. That the allies were not able tightly to isolate Humaitá by rejoining the river at Establecimiento, but had to go all the way to Tayí, was an important setback.

I have always wondered how that map got into Wikipedia. I suspect someone was working from an earlier map, precisely the same mistaken survey that led to the Establecimiento disaster.Ttocserp 03:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery[edit]

Possible images to use here. Ttocserp 22:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love them, especially Osório.Ttocserp 22:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captured artillery in Humaitá
Reconnaissance of Humaitá by general Osório
Reconnaissance of Humaitá by general Osório on 16 July 1868
Observation balloon
(digitally improved and hand coloured)
Attack and capture of Estabelecimiento/Cierva redoubt, brigadier Andrade Neves firing at a Paraguayan soldier
Supply line of Caxias
Allegory, disputes in government: liberals (Zacarias de Góis) vs conservatives (Caxias and Rodrigues Torres)
"Blood hospital" in Asunción
Hunaitá in context
Humaitá environs and landward defences
Barranca de Humayta
Humaitá and its environs
Caxias' Headquarters, Tuyutí by José Ignacio Garmendia
Tethered balloon, Humaitá

Image links[edit]

Maybe one or two images from here is good enough to use, if digitally enhanced.

Topography[edit]

River Paraguay - very small declivity - floods in winter - the area was mud, swamp, marsh, carrizal, with few patches of dry ground along which troops might advance. The best summation I know is MacDermott, Brian Charles (1976). Historical Introduction. In Plá, Josefina The British In Paraguay, 1850-1870. The Richmond Publishing Co in association with St Antony's College, Oxford. ISBN 0855461969.. I'll find it and send you a scan.Ttocserp 11:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Torimem, please feel free to criticise anything I am writing. Severe criticism is best! I know I have a tendency to include too much information.Ttocserp 12:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it now, let's write freely first and deal with any issues later. Torimem (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the Battle of Curupayty by Cándido López[edit]

Will you consider making it a panorama? Upright=1.5 does not seem to be enough. It is a good image because it gives the reader an impression of the terrain, not just for the battle of Curupayty.Ttocserp 07:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Shall we use American-English, or British-English spelling?Ttocserp 09:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea. I'll do whatever you think is the best option, English is not my native language so your opinion is worth more than mine in this regard. Torimem (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allied forces[edit]

Have you stumbled upon any source that explicitly states the total number of allied soldiers that engaged in the siege so we can put it in the infobox? I'm afraid we'll have to calculate it ourselves based on separate sources, for example Whigham says 4000 Argentine soldiers remained in the front after Mitre's departure, the existing article about the siege gives some numbers for the Brazilian forces, so we might have to add it all up. Torimem (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not trust any of these numbers in books. I ask myself: how, exactly, did they know? Whose job was it to count them? And whose job was it to check the counters? Nobody. That's the trouble with infoboxes - they pretend to give numerically exact history that never existed. Even numbers in modern warfare e.g. WW1 are dubious.Ttocserp 00:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curupayty or Curupaytí?[edit]

In present-day English language sources the latter spelling is more usual.Ttocserp 21:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale was always to follow the existing articles' title. So for example we have the article "Battle of Curupayty", whenever I mentioned Curupayty I'd use the same spelling as that article's title. I did this for the sake of consistency within Wikipedia, as to not have several different names referring to the same thing, but if you think we should follow the spelling used in the sources it's perfectly fine for me. Torimem (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curupayty, then.Ttocserp 23:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

My feeling is that these efn notes are best used for editorial comments. But if it contains a SOURCE plus comment, it ought to be sfn| or ref

For example: When Paraguay's President López had given orders to attack the Empire of Brazil in November 1864, thus launching the 5-year war, he knew he was taking on a country vastly bigger than his own.^[1]

This is better than the efn| form, because the main purpose it to give the source of the statement, albeit with some editorial amplification. Ttocserp 13:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I think I know how to do it. Torimem (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ At least 20 times as populous: Bethell 1996, p. 6.

Good map needed[edit]

I am working to find a good map of the area that can illustrate the flanking movement. Jourdan's Planta do Territorio Paraguayo is the best, except it'a too faint to use on Wikipedia. I'm looking to having it enhanced. My wife is an artist so I'll ask her.Ttocserp 18:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title image[edit]

Shall we use the observation balloon (the one in A Vida Fluminense)? It gives quite a good first impression of the surrounding terrain.Ttocserp 14:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox? Torimem (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not very happy with infoboxes in a case like this because they oversimplify e.g. "x and y casualties" when nobody really knows. But, if we must have one, I'd prefer it was a little lower down the page. Ttocserp 14:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or would you prefer the Aftermath of the Battle of Curupayty? It also gives a good impression of the terrain.Ttocserp 11:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the delay, I was travelling to a different city. I think the observation balloon pic is better. I also think we should keep the infobox, but we can move it down the article if you think it's better this way. Torimem (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An important point for this article[edit]

Many observers were critical of the allies or wrote in derision because they took so long to capture Humaitá. Humaitá was described as a bluff, an exaggeration, almost a pathetic defence. For this reason once the fortress was dismantled pursuant to the Treaty of the Triple Alliance it was soon forgotten and few remember it now except Paraguayan War buffs. Personally I think this is a profoundly mistaken evaluation.

Given that warfare at that time and place was fought by armies with no professional officer corps, and hence, merely intuitively; given that the warfare they knew was in open country, typically cavalry engagements; it must have been incredibly difficult, much harder than we can now imagine, to fight in what were essentially swamps and marshes. Because the ground hugely favoured the defence, it was really trench warfare. It is as if South American armies had suddenly to fight in WW1. No wonder they were on a steep learning curve, Curupayty taught them to be extremely cautious, and rightly so I think,Ttocserp 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the battle of Curupayty - small point of correction[edit]

I don't think Flores left his position "as a result" of the disaster of Curupayty. He was leaving anyway for Montevideo, but had agreed to delay his departure to participate in the battle. (Whigham, 2017, p.120). Ttocserp 07:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I made a small change to it. Torimem (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little goldmine of resources![edit]

I've just found this link: it seems to have all the public domain digital resources of the national libraries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Portugal and Spain on the Paraguayan war in one convenient collection.

[1] Ttocserp 23:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. Torimem (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this letter from Caxias to his wife contain anything interesting [2]? Ttocserp 09:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I can barely read it because of the old caligraphy. Torimem (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Caxias[edit]

We need somewhere a really good image of Caxias -- preferably one that shows him as human, not one of those pompous representations that make him inaccessible to the 21st century mind. (For most Brazilians today, I wonder, is Caxias just a place?) You will know better than I, but here is one suggestion Ttocserp 23:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I'd say most people in Brazil do indeed associate Caxias with the army, since he is the Army's patron and his figure is alway remembered by the army in military marches, propaganda etc, although the first thing that might come to the mind of some people when hearing this name might be numerous cities with "Caxias" in the name such as Duque de Caxias in Rio de Janeiro. Anyway, what do you think about the following images?

Apart from these, there are some like these:

1

2 (I really like this one)

The problem with is that I'm not entirely sure if we could upload these. Torimem (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the middle one best. The first one is good too. They show Caxias the man.

1 ans 2: Well I'm a copyright lawyer, let's see what are the facts. Ttocserp 04:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you mind if I try to digitally enhance those two images you uploaded to Wikipedia Commons - the Cholera Morbus and Caxias satirised? Those 19th century monochrome media reproduce in a rather dark, gloomy way.ZZZZ Ttocserp 04:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem I guess. Torimem (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took them directly from the journal in the online library. Since they're more than 150 years old at this point they're in the public domain, right? Torimem (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life of author + 70 years Ttocserp 09:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put No.1 in the article because it can be dated and goes well with the narrative; but please, just a suggestion. Ttocserp 22:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the ones in Wikimedia I listed, I actually like No. 1 better. As for the images in general, the only thing that I usually don't like is aligning them on the left, especially when they move the section titles. What do you think? Are there any MOS recommendations regarding this? I know we should not "sandwich" the text. Torimem (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to put them on the left to prevent them from stacking up. [3] Let's worry about it later when we come to do the polishing up.Ttocserp 23:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two digitally enhanced images from Cabriāo[edit]

I think these are a bit better. Do you agree? If not, please revert. Ttocserp 12:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Torimem (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two Doratioto-chosen cartoons may be one too many? Alternative suggestion[edit]

I am a little concerned that we are using the same selection of Cabriāo cartoons as Doratioto. This is a rather complicated topic in copyright law, but basically, if an author has created an original compilation of material, you don't get round the law by going back to the original sources. And, irrespective of the law, might it be better not to follow Doratioto too closely?

Would you consider substituting one of them by another from Cabriāo, for example this one?

Ttocserp 14:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or another one [4] Ttocserp 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC). Or this one [5]. Or another [6]. Or this [7][reply]

Well, if I had to choose I'd pick 4 or 7, but feel free to pick any of them. This one 8 is good too I think. Torimem (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties facing the besiegers[edit]

I have transposed the order of material because I feel that the strength of the fortress and the home front should come last. If you disagree, please revert. Ttocserp 09:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, do what you think is best, I won't revert your edits! Torimem (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More images[edit]

I will put a selection of images here as a reminder, they might be useful. There was a paraguayan user (Pedro Cayetano J Vera) that uploaded a lot of new images recently. Have you seen them?

This one shows a Brazilian (Esmerata) priest calling for the paraguayans to surrender. A similar, perhaps the same event, is mentioned by Fragoso, with the same priest calling for colonel (?) Martínez to surrender, which took place on 4 August 1868; however I can't tell for certain if the image depicts the same event.
Boy soldiers?
This one isn't a contemporary painting and doesn't seem to depict any specific battle, but it could be useful to illustrate
Same as the previous one

Torimem (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the surrender one is depicting the same surrender; though the scene is otherwise imaginary, of course, like all the others. Ttocserp 22:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seem these pictures:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Torimem (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'd seen some but not all. Ttocserp 15:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pelotas":

1 2 Torimem (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next section to write[edit]

Soon we shall have finished the flanking march and we can start on the siege proper. What section would you prefer to do next? What about Lòpez escapes with the bulk of his army? The sources are really Whigham 2017 and Thompson - you have those online. But, whatver you like. Ttocserp 16:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not satisfied with the reorganisation section, I'll work more on it. Do you think it's good so far? As for the next one, I can do the López escape, it's fine by me. Torimem (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you dissatisfied? It's excellent, Ttocserp 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I'm afraid if we write this article with such a broad coverage like we're doing so far, it might conflate with the article Humaitá campaign. What do you think? Torimem (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! I didn't know about that. What are we going to do now?

Of course the scope of our article is The Capture of Humaitâ - or something like that. The Siege was just the culmination. Ttocserp 18:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article through; I think there's no problem. OUR article is about the capture of Humaitá; THEIR article is much broader going from the invasion of Paraguay to the Pikysyry and Cordilleras campaigns. THEY have a section called Capture of Humaitá; ours can be the main article. So, no valid content forking objection. Also, ours will be much better detailed, illustrated and sourced. Do you agree`/ Ttocserp 21:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

Apart from the Caxias' quotes I've already included, there are a few more in Moura's article. Do you think they're relevant enough and should be included too?

Caxias letter to his sister (March 1868):

"[I am] surrounded by difficulties [...] having Paraguayans in front, Correntino traitors in the rear, led by Urquiza, and in the center the cholera epidemic that killed 3,400 men (120 officers). The best men".

And this one to Osório, which I recall having seen on Wikipedia, but I don't remember exactly where:

"And let us, my friend, see if we finish this damned war, which has ruined our country and which already shames us for its duration". Torimem (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really think your section is excellent, but readers have short attention spans, don't overburden it with quotes. The second quote gives the title of Doratioto's book, who specifies the source. Ttocserp 10:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section is finished then. I'll move on to the next. Torimem (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms[edit]

For the Army reorganisation section it would be nice to have an image of uniforms, seeing they were previously in rags.

This one might be ok but you'll know of better i.e. more realistic, less romantic ones. Ttocserp 13:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have several pictures of Brazilian army uniforms from the war, from the same source of this one you linked, but I'm afraid I can't upload them. Their creator died in 1957, so they're not in the public domain yet. Torimem (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's strange that Wasth Rodriguez died in 1957 yet both the Internet Archive and the National Library of Brazil have this book online and let you download it. It is out of copyright in the U.S. but not Europe or Brazil. I have a solution: copyright protects the drawings, not the the uniforms as such, assuming the latter already existed and Wasth Rodriguez didn't invent them. So I could get someone to re-draw them i.e. different people wearing the same uniform.

Before I do, though, I want to ask you something important. Are those drawings realistic? Or has the artist imagined the uniforms. For example, see [8]

and look for

"Os modelos combinavam pouco com a realidade". Ttocserp 10:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've reached out to a friend of mine that knows way more about me about uniforms. I asked him if these drawings by Rodrigues are realistic, and he said they are indeed. The only observation he made, is that some of the drawings portray the soldiers carrying more items than they seem to do in pictures. Torimem (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to write the "López escapes" section...[edit]

... here are two sources.

. Thompson 1869, pp. 251-9.
. Centurión 1897 (vol III), pp.135-142
. Whigham 2017, pp. 237-

We already have them blue-lined. Ttocserp 13:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to do this one, choose another; I'm content, Ttocserp 23:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. Torimem (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I like your style by the way. Ttocserp 23:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned with one thing: I might be writing from a too Brazil-centered point of view. For example, Moura's article on the army reorganisation doesn't mention what was done on the Argentine and Uruguayan armies, it talks about Brazil specifically (Brazilian Army), rarely mentioning "Allied". What do you think? Torimem (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the Argentine army was reorganised. But I'll keep a lookout in Argentine sources e.g. Garmendia. Ttocserp 10:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherland Volunteers[edit]

Can we try a different expression? For historical reasons, "Fatherland' in English conveys unintended nuances. "The Fatherland" is what Hitler would say in a bad film!

This is one of those cases where there is no need to translate at all and it is best not to. Just Voluntários da Pátria in italics. English speakers can work out that Voluntários means volunteers! The first time if you like with a footnote that explains it means Patriot Volunteers. (It's OK to use the Latin but not the Anglo-Saxon!) Ttocserp 11:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I had no idea that was the case. The word "pátria" stems from "pater" which means father, so the most logical translation to me was Pátria = Fatherland. In any case, feel free to name it whatever you want. Torimem (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, you are literally right. It's ok to say "patriotic" (Latin), but "fatherland" (Anglo-Saxon) has become ridiculous, a caricature of Vaterland as used by the Kaiser and Hitler. Ttocserp 15:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article...[edit]

... should be the Capture of Humaitá or the Capture of the Fortress of Humaitá. The siege is a part. Afterwards we can merge the existing article with this article. Ttocserp 20:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might generate some complications, but it's fine to me. Torimem (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

Dear Torimem,

Convince me that infoboxes are a good idea. for a humane, inexact discipline like history. Ttocserp 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hard task hahaha, well... I think I can't convince you. What I can say though is that every article about a military conflict on Wikipedia has one, wouldn't it be weird if ours didn't have one too? Someone would mark it with a "needs infobox" tag at some point. Besides, we're only including numbers to summarize and give readers an idea of the scale of the conflict the article covers. In the "result" part we only include who won, in accordance with Wikipedia's recommendations for military infoboxes. What do you think? Torimem (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Let me think this over. Ttocserp 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right. If we don't, others will. Though we must be completely accurate - if the numbers are estimates, we say so. That said, I think the title image should be separate from the infobox. I believe a title image, if it is bold and relevant, can make a huge difference.Ttocserp 02:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you put a footnote in the infobox that reads something like "All numbers should be received with caution since 19th-century official reports were often intended to be for public consumption:, please? Ttocserp 19:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Torimem (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel better already! Ttocserp 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image size in px[edit]

Changing the px value makes the images come out irregularly on my laptop screen (I emphasise mine, it may ok on other machines). In the Tuyu-Cué section we have four images; we want 2 rows of 2 each; on my screen it now gives 3 in the first row and 1 in the second row. But I accept it may be ok on some other screens. Do you know how to fix this for all screens? I will think about it too. Ttocserp 23:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... I changed it precisely because it was showing 3 images on top and a lonely one below, I made it so that all images were displayed together in a single row. Every screen will display it diferently depending on its resolution it seems. Honestly, I have no idea how to get around this issue. Torimem (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know how. There's a feature by which you can make any 2 images display as a horizontal pair. I'll try doing it twice, one above another. Ttocserp 18:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - other Paraguayan commanders[edit]

Besides López, the other Paraguayan commanders of Humaitá were Paulino Alén and Francisco Martínez, who were in charge, in that order, after López had left. Their names need to go in the infobox. I confess I don't know how to do that. Ttocserp 11:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll include them, but there's an issue I was thinking: every info that we put in the infobox must be in the body of the article somewhere with its source. Torimem (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was coming to that. Ttocserp 18:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it for the number of soldiers and guns, and the number of people left in Humaitá (given by Tasso Fragoso) Torimem (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the 400 guns info is already in the body of the article. Torimem (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the source and page for the number of Paraguayan soldiers defending Humaitá at the beginning of the siege anymore. I need it for the infobox. Do you have it? Torimem (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look it up. Ttocserp 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A strategic decision[edit]

I must say I'm pleased how the article is coming along.

At the moment it has 10,782 words of "readable prose" which is slightly over the suggested maximum of 10,000 for the average reader's attention span. We can live with this, but I wonder if we should consider breaking the article into 2 or 3, or hiving out some parts. What do you think? There's no need to rush this decision. Ttocserp 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well.. I was actually going to suggest adding a "Aftermath/consequences" section. Torimem (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with you. We must.

So it will end up with maybe 12,000 words altogether. Ttocserp 20:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be succint in my section now. Torimem (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about this, there's still a significant amount of things to write. Osório and Argolo's attacks etc. I'm thinking on how to write it with as few words as possible while still keeping information. Torimem (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there's quite a lot of stuff to write. Let's just do it well and then we can decide whether to move some of it out. Ttocserp 08:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image size and px[edit]

I think we should specify image size as upright=?? and not px=??, where it is possible to do so, in accordance with MOS:IMGSIZE. Ttocserp 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Torimem (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

At first I had included 2 November 1867 as the starting date for the siege, this date is given by Gonçalves and is also the starting date on the existing article about the siege, which says "Humaitá was surrounded by land on 2 November 1867, by water on 19 February 1868, and surrendered on 25 July 1868". Shouldn't we keep it? Torimem (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is not just about the siege of Humaitá but the flanking march etc leading up to its isolation. A siege strictly is when there is no way a fortress can be relieved or supplied. That's why I changed the title. It's even arguable that Humaitá was never under siege stricto sensu. So the starting date is when they started the flanking march. Ttocserp 21:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some miscellaneous points[edit]

(a) Is there a special reason you call it Asiatic cholera? It's usually just cholera in English.

(b) Why do you spell it bogabantes? Isn't it bogavantes in Spanish and Portuguese?

(c) López escapes with the bulk of his army. I assume you haven't finished, but I'd be curious to know how they took heavy artillery across the river Bermejo and five deep streams. Ttocserp 10:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. It's how Whigham referred to it, I wrote exactly what he said. I was curious about it too and searched for it, this is what the article about Cholera says:

References to cholera appear in the European literature as early as 1642, from the Dutch physician Jakob de Bondt's description in his De Medicina Indorum. (The "Indorum" of the title refers to the East Indies. He also gave first European descriptions of other diseases.) But at the time, the word "cholera" was historically used by European physicians to refer to any gastrointestinal upset resulting in yellow diarrhea. De Bondt thus used a common word already in regular use to describe the new disease. This was a frequent practice of the time. It was not until the 1830s that the name for severe yellow diarrhea changed in English from "cholera" to "cholera morbus" to differentiate it from what was then known as "Asiatic cholera", or that associated with origins in India and the East. Early outbreaks in the Indian subcontinent are believed to have been the result of crowded, poor living conditions, as well as the presence of pools of still water, both of which provide ideal conditions for cholera to thrive. The disease first spread by travelers along trade routes (land and sea) to Russia in 1817, later to the rest of Europe, and from Europe to North America and the rest of the world, (hence the name "Asiatic cholera"). Seven cholera pandemics have occurred since the early 19th century; the first one did not reach the Americas. The seventh pandemic originated in Indonesia in 1961.

B. It's the same spelling Whigham uses.

C. Whigham says López used his steamers, without giving any further detail, but he might talk more about it later and I haven't read it yet. Torimem (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I think we should call it cholera to reflect the understanding of the present day reader. At least it's politically correct!

(b) I think Whigham is mistaken. Bogavante is the Spanish spelling. But then, the Spanish always had trouble distinguishing the b larga and v corta. There's even a joke about in classical Latin.

(c) They certainly can't have used steamers. People tried to navigate the Bermejo for a century without result. My cousin has done it in a kayak. Let alone the other "deep streams". I don't think Whigham knows. I shall mention it to him next time I talk to him! I think they used 'pelotas'. Do you know what were 'pelotas'`?

This escape is fascinating and must have been heroic. Ttocserp 13:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only learned about the "pelotas" when writing this article. Apparently they were depicted by Jean-Baptiste Debret in his travel to Brazil in the early 19th century. I linked some pictures of it above. Torimem (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

III Resquín pp.139-142 has some information on this topic. Ttocserp 21:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Thompson 236-259. Ttocserp 21:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the escape, Whigham mentioned the Paraguay river was "swollen", perhaps this is why they managed to use their steamers, no? This information seems to be correct, other sources that talk about their attempt to seize the ironclads also mention the river had risen considerably. Torimem (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: co-ordinates[edit]

The co-ordinates of Humaitá are 27°4′12″S 58°30′0″W / 27.07000°S 58.50000°W / -27.07000; -58.50000. Can you work it into the Infobox so that it reads something like "Location: floodplain of the River Paraguay near Humaitá, southern Paraguay" with the co-ordinates? Ttocserp 14:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Torimem (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another miscellaneous point?[edit]

Madame Lynch "wife" of López? Not even Obispo Palacios could marry them. What about 'long-term mistress'? Ttocserp 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while I'm here: that's a nice image by Karl Linde - do you want me to enhance it digitally? Ttocserp 14:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it to mistress, but I remember reading somewhere that they were married, no? Perhaps my memory is tricking me. As for the image, feel free to enchance it. Torimem (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best image in my opinion, do you think we should use it instead?

Torimem (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Lynch. The entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (author: Thomas L. Whigham, 2017) reads

"Lynch, Eliza Alicia (1835–1886), mistress of Francisco Solano López, marshal-president of Paraguay, was born in co. Cork, Ireland, on 3 June 1835, the youngest daughter of John Lynch (b. c.1808), a medical doctor and country squire, and his wife, Jane, née Lloyd. Relatively little about Lynch's childhood has surfaced, though she clearly enjoyed an affluent status. According to her later testimony, her father, a Roman Catholic, was related to two bishops 'and more than seventy magistrates' (Lynch, 6). He had graduated from Trinity College, Dublin, and while he never practised as a physician, he married into a family of well-placed protestant landowners. His wife's family were of Welsh descent, and owned considerable property not only in Ireland, but also in England and on the French coast opposite Dover; they included naval officers who had served under Nelson."

(b) You are right. While Agostini's naval details are shaky, Linde's are terrible. Ttocserp 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But a very promising one is Fig 10 in this important article about Victor Meirelles. Do you think we can get it in colour/ Ttocserp 16:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The paper suggests that this image was just a drawing for a possible order for a painting on the episode. I know there are a LOT of paintings rotting in museums or private collections that we don't have access to or are not available on the internet, which is such a bummer. The National Historical Museum of Brazil holds a lot of them, and there are a lot of paintings by Candido Lopez in Argentina, for example on the battle of Tuyutí, that you can't find online too. Torimem (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was published by the National Museum of Argentina in their Facebook page, for example, which is why I believe there are a lot of paintings that we simply don't know 1 Torimem (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame really. Ttocserp 18:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panic in Asunción[edit]

Where does a source say this? Thompson 248-9 doesn't. Whigham 228-231 doesn't actually say so -- there was panic, but not in Asunción. Since the damage was small, it is unlikely. Ttocserp 19:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whigham says, p. 230-231:

Delphim’s decision to withdraw from Asunción seemed cowardly to Washburn. But it also produced a useful psychological impact—not just in Paraguay, but also in Rio de Janeiro [...] The marquis had good reason to suppose that hitting Asunción, even in a limited way, might inspire a panic similar to that caused by Paunero’s raid on Paraguayan-held Corrientes in May 1865. [...] the Allies hoped that the entire urban population would flee, causing the Marshal’s army not just to pull back, but to disintegrate altogether. In assuming a cautious stance at the time of the raid, the Allied commander likely missed another opportunity to shorten the war. Paraguay’s civilian population had indeed panicked and could never again hope to supply Humaitá; so much confusion reigned at Luque and in the hill country behind Asunción that people could not obtain sufficient food for their own needs, much less provide real support to López’s army. Had they known the state of affairs, the Allies might have taken advantage of the turmoil to bring their full force to bear on the enemy. It was another opportunity lost.

I know what you mean, the population didn't panic in Asunción, but that's not the idea I'm trying to say, and I think this is not what Whigham is trying to say either. They panicked wherever they were. What do you think? Torimem (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Whigham is very clear or convincing. What he calls panic may just be the natural reaction of ordinary civilians to being evacuated on short notice. Imagine old people and children suddenly having to leave with what they could carry. But that was not done by the ironclads, it was ordered by López himself (why, is an interesting question -- he already thought the city had conspirators in high places. But that's another story.). The damage done by the ironclads to Asunción on the 22nd ("the demolition of a couple of dogs in the market-place", etc) was so slight it can have had little to do with it.

I think a stronger way of putting it, and completely accurate too, is to emphasise the serious disruption to asunceños' lives; and, as a separate matter, the psychological impact of the ironclads firing on the nation's capital, if only for its symbolic significance. Ttocserp 20:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it, I think it's better now. Also, I think Nakayama's article link is private now, at least for me, the connection changed to https/ Torimem (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally back home, got my Doratioto's in hand now. Torimem (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Need a source for this sentence. The escape route..."[edit]

Why? Since the fortress was cut off by land [sourced], and the river was cut off at Tayí [sourced], how else could he leave except by the escape route [sourced] he'd made for the purpose? Ttocserp 08:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually (try to) reference every sentence by finding it explicitly said in the sources, so that if a reader decided to check the page he would find the same thing there, albeit written in other words, so I was in doubt in this case.

Now on to another subject:

a) I see you left some notes in the references group. Is this on purpose? Can I change them to Efn to group them in the notes section?

b) How do I upload pictures that someone granted me permission to? I know a man that allowed me to upload some of his photographs of Osório that are part of his family album. Torimem (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a). Surely.

b). First, is it in the public domain. What is the date of the photograph? When was it first published? (I presume the photographer must have died a long time ago.) Ttocserp 20:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem, the sources say "Argolo Ferrão" without specifying which one (there were three officers named Argolo!) I had this same issue here <Order of battle at Tuyutí>. I assume it might be the older Argolo, but I can't say for certain. Torimem (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the picture: it's his property, apparently he is the owner. If you search for it on the internet it gives no results. He said it is in his family's album and he digitalised it. The date is not known, nor when it was first published. I asked him if I could upload it to Wikimedia as "public domain" and he agreed, but I'm in doubt on how to do it there, should I credit him? How do I make it so that people know that it was authorized (assuming that's necessary at all)?. Torimem (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not who owns the photograph, but who owns the copyright in the original photograph. If it is in the public domain, we do not need copyright clearance to upload it. The man who says he is the "owner" may own the physical property, and can stop anyone touching the photo without his permission, but this has nothing to do with copyright. By digitalising it he gets no copyright for Wikipedia's purposes, because it is a faithful reproduction of a public domain image. Thus, if he gives permission you can simply upload it as a public domain work without needing to mention him. (You may choose to do so if you want, as explaining its provenance.)

A genuine photograph of Osorio must have been taken so long ago - he died in 1879 - that the photographer must have died more than 70 years ago.

So, use the upload wizard, and choose the option that says the U.S. copyright has definitely expired, and tick the option for faithful reproduction of a work on the public domain. Ttocserp 22:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Torimem (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you have it. I also edited it and uploaded the extracted version:

Torimem (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaco again[edit]

We seem to be at cross-purposes. The question is: how did the Paraguayans manage to remove their heavy artillery pieces through the Chaco. Yes, they used steamers to get them across the river Paraguay; but then, how did they get them to Monte Lindo seeing they had to cross the Bermejo and 5 other deep streams? Ttocserp 08:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final capture and destruction of Humaitá[edit]

"Others, such as Mitre, held that the fortress should immediately be taken". Your source is Gonçalves, but is he right? Mitre had gone home months before. Ttocserp 12:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Gonçalves this was just Mitre writing to the Argentine general. He was not part of the councils of war. Ttocserp 14:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is right, he says it was Mitre's letter to Gelly y Obes. Torimem (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but is it relevant enough here? Just a retired general with his two cents worth. Did Caxias even know about it? Ttocserp 16:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's relevant, no? I begin the sentence by saying the options divided opinions. Mitre's opinion serves as example, a counterpoint to Argolo's. But I can remove it in any case. Torimem (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New url for Nakayama[edit]

In the article could you put the new url for the Nakayama reference, please? Ttocserp 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Torimem (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still get "This connection is not private" which means it has no valid certificate. Did you change it? Ttocserp 17:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, I can't do it now. I'll change it later today. Torimem (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try it now, I think it's fixed. Torimem (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is thank you. Ttocserp 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doratioto references[edit]

Torimem, I have only the Kindle edition of Doratio 2022, which does not give the printed page references, at least reliably. I would be grateful when we finalise this if you would put in the correct numbers. Presently, I've denoted the place by a characteristic phrase. Ttocserp 18:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll do it. Torimem (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I can't get the printed book here. Ttocserp 18:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to finish the capture section, but what do you think about the article so far? Torimem (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the article is superb and we are geniuses. Ttocserp 19:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear. I need your help with the Doratioto refs. There's one marked with "???". Can you tell me its chapter? Torimem (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll visit all of them and change the ??? to unique text. Ttocserp 08:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are all indicated now in bold type with headings and chapter numbers. Ttocserp 13:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joking apart, what do you think of it?[edit]

I mean, seriously? Ttocserp 22:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are silent. Feel free to criticise severely. Ttocserp 01:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see this. I think the article is looking really great so far. My only "real" concern is actually forgetting to include some relevant info, like an event or person, and not remembering it later, this is why I try to write in such a way that I can link to as many parallel articles as possible as you might have already noticed. Torimem (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I'm almost certain this article might have something to do with ours, though I don't know exactly what as I'm not too familiar with that topic. Torimem (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know the feeling. And your strategy for writing is a good one. On the other hand, omissions can always be made good later.

One topic we haven't covered is the lines of circumvallation. As they got nearer the Paraguayan trenches, they had to build trenches of their own for their own protection. This is tersely summarised in the map Jourdan 1871 at Plates V and Vi. The works are tabulated there in the box on the right. Counting subsidiary installations, they made over 51 km of trenches. That is a staggering amount for the time and place. Ttocserp 02:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, after reading all this, I think the Allies should've sticked to their original plan of taking Humaitá by the south. Instead of all the resources and time they spent besieging the fortress, they could have acquired larger guns and forced their way into Humaitá. I've seen the artillery issue being talked about more than once. It's common to read that the Allied bombardments had "no effect". How could they not have any effect? I'm not an expert but this seems vague. I'll definitely look more into it. Torimem (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we would be profiting from hindsight - a luxury not available to Caxias. He did not know what you know, and politics forbade him to risk another Curupayty. Ttocserp 03:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more things in mind to write. I think I'm done writing for now. I'll keep reading the remaining sources and include whatever relevant thing I find there. What do you plan to do next after creating the article proper? We'll merge the existing siege article into this one, right? Torimem (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have to make a strategic decision: what do we do about the fact that the size of the article in readable prose is 13,134 words -- about 30% more than the recommended maximum when people's attention spands give out.

As I see it we have three options.

Do nothing.
Try to trim it.
. Divide some of it out as being naturally a free-standing subject. Ttocserp 03:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to divide it, how would that be? What article would you stem from it? Torimem (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask friends to read over it. Maybe we're tto close to it now. Ttocserp 04:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images in last section[edit]

Are the images in The razing of the fortress of Humaitá blown too large? Please feel free to adjust them (or anythIng else I do) if you think so. Ttocserp 23:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, they seem fine to me. The only thing that usually bothers me is when the images displace the sections' titles. Torimem (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Doratioto[edit]

Thank you for converting those Doratioto references; I had not realised you had done them all. Ttocserp 09:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of personalities?[edit]

Should we have a section comprising a gallery of images of some of the prominent allied leaders?

We could use your Osorio image that way. Ttocserp 10:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a pretty good idea. Torimem (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version of image[edit]

Would you prefer to use this version of your Brazilian cavalry reconnoitring image? It's better coloured and the oval shape may be nicer. If you like it better, I'll crop, enhance and upload it. Ttocserp 13:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, no. It has a much lower resolution and quality. But this is just my opinion, feel free to do as you wish. In fact, I'd like to see this one in the article. Torimem (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the caption makes clear it's a romanticised depiction - the real Paraguayans were thin and in rags. Ttocserp 21:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Torimem (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The great stagnation; army and sanitation reforms[edit]

This heading is a little off-putting to the reader. Why not just say The reforms? Ttocserp 09:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. Torimem (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final[edit]

I think it's pretty well finished now. It is very good.

We have to decide whether to leave it at 13,000 words. It's very long, but we could just about live with that.

On the other hand, you might think that there should be a new article on Wikipedia, to be called The Caxias reforms - comprising present sections 2 and 3. Ttocserp 13:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should publish it as it is, at least for now. I'll revise the command changes paragraph and maybe make some final edits. Torimem (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried it on goodwill people who are interested to read it. They give up; it's too much information to read in one session. Ttocserp 20:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going live - how shall we do it?[edit]

We have two options:

Create a new article called Capture of Humaitá.
Replace the existing article Siege of Humaitá. The title can be changed later.

The second option was our original idea. It's not a bad one. I am coming round to preferring it. Ttocserp 10:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being all honest I prefer 2. Torimem (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's do it. When shall we? Ttocserp 12:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do the honours. Torimem (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it.

It has been a pleasure to co-operate with you. Ttocserp 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equally! Torimem (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future projects[edit]

I'm happy we managed to write this article. It was a good experience writing it. I know we just finished this one, but I'm more than willing to improve other important articles of the war like the battles of Curupayty, Tuyutí and Riachuelo in the future if you feel like doing so as well. We could even touch some forgotten aspects of the war like the Mato Grosso campaign, the Retreat of Laguna or even the post war Allied occupation of Paraguay, the Brazilian fleet of 1855, anything really. Feel free to contact me! Torimem (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to.

Presently I'm thinking of creating a much-needed article to be called Argentine Revisionist Historians. Do you know about it? Ttocserp 10:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superficially, yes. I'd suggest you change the title to Argentine revisionism. Torimem (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs an article. I know < 3%. But every lawyer starts a case knowing that much. Ttocserp 17:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Curupayty needs a complete rewrite and we could almost do it now. Ttocserp 23:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] At least 20 times as populous: Bethell 1996, p. 6.

[1]