Talk:Paraguayan War

Pope Francis and the Paraguayan War

Hello. I've attempted to add this very relevant information about the late Pope Francis and his statements about the Paraguayan War. I do think is very relevant because of the position of the Roman Pontiff, as a major "moral leader figure" and arguably the first one that actually spoke about this issue.

All sources are from newspapers of record or major outlets of many countries, including the BBC or Deutsche Welle. In recent days, I've also recieved notice that there are some books published in Paraguay and in Argentina that talk about this.

The original text I intended to add was this one:

Pope Francis, who was born in Argentina and was very close to Paraguayan migrants while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, on several ocasions denounced the "iniquitous" War of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay, "a country that was defeated by the injustice of internationalist interests", in his own words. He also celebrated the "heroic-ness" of the Paraguayan people in the defense of their country and for their "admirable spirit of perseverance in surmounting adversities and in working to build a prosperous and peaceful nation". And most especially, the Pope eulogized the Paraguayan women, to whom he declared as "the most glorious women of the Americas" because of their strength, the sufferings they had to endure and the efforts the Paraguayan women made after the war to rebuild their destroyed nation while keeping alive their culture and their faith.

Of course, this could be redacted in a more reasonable or adequate way by an expert Wiki author.

I considered it to be part of a MODERN INTERPRETATION OF THE WAR, but this could also be discussed.

So, I put this to your consideration and I myself believe this should be ADDED to this article, one way or another, maybe with a better and more seasoned style.

Most kindly. Mandyju (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mandyju, please read WP:OR (as mentioned by Ttocserp earlier). Unless there's a source which explicitly lands at the conclusions you have derived from the sources, this content cannot be added to Wikipedia. Also, please read the message I left at your talk page. Thanks! Coeusin (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There are several reasons why Mandyju won't do.

First, you must not in any circumstances attribute propositions to sources that do not state them; that is elementary. You violate this right away with your first cited source. Nowhere in The Guardian for 11 July 2025 does it say the Pope alleged Paraguay was "a country that was defeated by the injustice of internationalist interests" (a highly controversial statement, by the way). Nor does it say so in the BBC for 11 July 2025, your third cited source. The only source that does say that ("un país derrotado por la injusticia y los intereses internacionales") is ABC Color, in my opinion a junk newspaper with a history of supporting the Colorado Party, but anyway not a source with an international reputation for reliability. Thus you have attributed a highly controversial statement, which does not come from a reputable source, to three including the BBC and The Guardian which are.

Secondly, please read and understand WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material Even if your three cited sources were completely impeccable, you are not allowed to synthesise them like this. Ttocserp 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

In fact, all of the newspapers mention what I've wrote, one way or another. Even ABC Color, which I myself don't like but the information is reliable and videos of Pope Francis saying exactly what they reported, are available.

Also, there are recent books in Paraguay and in Argentina that mention this.

I will assume that you and the other editor are acting in "good faith", because all the sourced materials mention what I've stated; I assume that there could be a redaction issue from my part, but it is a well known fact that Pope Francis constantly denounced the Triple Alliance and praised the Paraguayan people, especially the women.

Here's one book (in Spanish) that has all the speeches given by Pope Francis in Paraguay, that coincides with what's reported by the news outlets. https://www.google.com.py/books/edition/El_Papa_Francisco_en_Ecuador_Bolivia_y_P/TVAoCgAAQBAJ?hl=es-419&gbpv=1&dq=papa+francisco+libro+guerra+paraguay&pg=PT94&printsec=frontcover. If you speak Spanish, go to the chapters related to Paraguay and you will find it.

In this book, the speeches of Pope Francis are also mentioned: https://ellector.com.py/productos/los-crimenes-de-la-triple-alianza-contra-el-paraguay-id-VQ7bTbD.html

And here you got a couple of videos where Pope Francis says exactly what's reported: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3_Mjp3umvA (Efe Agency) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo6d42sLnjw (ABC Color, quoting from Argentinian sources).

So, in no way whatsoever you can say that this is not reliable nor official nor verified information. Granted, the redaction could be improved to make it as neutral as possible.

I hope that this can be discussed without any biases. Mandyju (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Now you cite a completely different range of sources. Why should your fellow editors have to check out all of these? Life is too short! Please identify a single source that supports your proposition. A combination of "near misses", none of them on target, is worthless. Ttocserp 13:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Just by pure chance I entered the talk page because I'm using my mobile phone and I did a wrong clic.

You may believe this or not, but I authored many of the fragments of the current version of this Paraguayan War article, years ago. Unfortunately, I lost the password of my old account and I couldn't care less about recovering it.

Anyways. I think the user Madjyu has a point.

Firstly, because the information he is sharing for the page meets a very important criterion of Wikipedia, that is, WP:Relevance. The words of Pope Francis, who was an Argentinian as far as I know and also the leader of the Roman Church, are really important as a moral figure who is talking about a very destructive conflict. I'm not an expert in Church issues, but I believe Pope Francis was known around the world because of his open minded views about several topics, and this could be one of those topics, albeit we may agree with him or not.

Secondly, I think the other editors who intervened are being unfair with their interpretations about sources. As far as I can tell, the user Madjyu added some very reliable perennial sources i.e. WP:RSPSOURCES and as far as I can tell, they do say (in general) what he is intending to add.

Thirdly, even if the user Mandyu probably wrote his editing in a non-encyclopedic way, I disagree with the claim that this is an original research i.e. WP:NOR. He is using reliable sources that actually talk about what he intended to write down. Remember that non-original-research doesn't mean that you cannot add information that was actually reported in reliable sources; that is, if your information is coming from an official and reliable source, what matters the most is the proper writing and the proper wording of the information so it can reflect the correct ideas that are originally published so it can be included into the article without any bias.

So, with all that said, I think the information provided by user Madjyu, properly curated, should be ADDED. It meets the "relevance" criteria for this subject matter, it contains many reliable sources (though some of them aren't, surely) and it cannot be considered an original research since the addition is merely reporting this very important issue. I also agree that it could be considered as a "modern interpretation of the war".

Of course, this information should be written down by an expert editor that can put down the proper words in the proper encyclopedic way, without any particular bias.

Have a nice day, wiki editors.

Signed: a (semi) retired wiki editor from the past. 2803:7D80:A40D:7991:C019:6BFC:FFB4:3D54 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

When you have identified exactly what the Pope was alleged to have said, and the source, we shall resume the discussion. Ttocserp 21:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but you didn't even mention your account. How do we know who you even are? ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2026

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Primarily due to WP:COMMONNAME, as well as "triple alliance" being ambiguous. Ttocserp's analysis of JSTOR mentions (JSTOR is available via WP:TWL, for anybody curious.) was especially helpful, and I was able to reproduce the numbers myself, if I was off by around 2-5ish hits, likely due to a difference in search queries. ASUKITE 17:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Paraguayan War → War of the Triple AllianceWar of the Triple Alliance – Someone tried to request this move some years ago, but they got no responses and the thread has been archived, so I'll bring it up again. In English, "War of the Triple Alliance" is the widely used term for this war. Never have I seen any English-language source other than this one refer to the war in question as the "Paraguayan War". Additionally, the move would get rid of the ambiguity with Paraguay's other wars. PLMMJ (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Support. That's the name I've known it by as well. TheChestertonian (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Ngrams slightly favours War of the Triple Alliance over Paraguayan War and Google Scholar slightly favours Paraguayan War over War of the Triple Alliance. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: we've had two discussions already on this name change and both moves failed, after wasting a massive amount of community time. Besides minor conflicts and the 1811 invasion, Paraguay's only other major international war is inequivocally known as the Chaco War. Hooker, Kraay and Whigham, and Bethell all prefer to call it the Paraguayan War, and most others alternate between both nomenclatures. Please do more research before envolving the community in such issues. Perhaps it is time for a moratorium? Coeusin (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: for the reasons stated in previous move requests. As has been noted, the war has been widely known under both names, and the redirect and opening sentence of the lead section prevent any confusion. There have been several historical Triple Alliances, and using the term in the title lacks the concision of the current title. • Astynax ^talk 18:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "War of the Triple Alliance" Is overly verbose, frankly. There have also been many wars fought in the Pacific, and the Chile-Bolivian one is called "War of the Pacific" on Wikipedia. TheChestertonian (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The current title has been in place since 2005. Now it is claimed that War of the Triple Alliance is "the widely used term" in English — that Paraguayan War is hardly used. This is simply wrong. Paraguayan War is overwhelmingly the preferred usage in the English language, certainly in serious scholarly writing.

The JSTOR library is a database of nearly all recent high-quality scholarly articles in the English language. The facts speak for themselves:

Articles in JSTOR database that mention the quoted phrase:

	"paraguayan war"	"war of the triple alliance"	"triple alliance war"
in the article's title	59 (32)	7 (6)	2 (2)
at least once in body	1,197 (831)	702 (429)	180 (126)

(Source: JSTOR, interrogation of search engine provided, 17 May 2026. Figures in brackets are articles that can be accessed now with a JSTOR subscription; bold figures may need another subscription to relevant journal.)

In those few cases where "war of the triple alliance' appeared in an article's title, additional language was employed to explain it was about the war with Paraguay: the context had to be supplied. For instance, "Draft Dodgers, War Resisters and Turbulent Gauchos: The War of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay"; "The Paraguayan Image of the War of the Triple Alliance". I have found only one exception ("The War of the Triple Alliance: Three Explanatory Models" by Diego Abente) but that article was published in the Latin American Research Review where the context was obvious. As an international encyclopaedia we lack that context; Wikipedia is widely read on five other continents where the war may be unknown.

The Google Scholar database (though it contains much junk as well as sound scholarship) paints a broadly similar picture:

Google Scholar hits

"paraguayan war"	"war of the triple alliance"	"triple alliance war"
3,880	2,610	814

Likewise, there are clearly more books with "Paraguayan War" in the title, than "War of the Triple Alliance. (Source: Google Books, interrogate intitle:field.)

It stands to reason: there have been several triple alliances in human history; indeed most were European, and one was North American. The usage "war of triple alliance" without specified context is narrow and parochial.

"War of the Triple Alliance" is not accurate anyway. The War actually began in 1864 when Paraguay declared war on Brazil; there was no triple alliance until Paraguay declared war on Argentina the next year, driving these traditional enemies into one another's arms.

Editors should perhaps be aware that seemingly innocuous disputes about the war's proper title can carry a lot of local ideological baggage. Even after 150 years this war is hotly debated. This is no present concern of Wikipedia.

Ttocserp 22:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.