Paraguayan War was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 25, 2005 Peer review Reviewed September 26, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South America: Argentina / Paraguay / Uruguay Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Argentina (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Paraguay (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Uruguay (assessed as Top-importance). Brazil: History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (assessed as Top-importance). Military history: South America Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 18 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SlipperyWhenWet141 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ND746392 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1][2][3] 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".^[4][5] 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.^[6][7][8]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The section named Gender and ethnic aspects should be renamed "Women and ethnic aspects". Most of the section covers only 'women' and the indigenous peoples contributions to the war. João^hola 09:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]