Talk:Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata

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

Argentina Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / French / South America 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 articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force French military history task force South American military history task force

A fact from Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in the mid-nineteenth century Argentina successfully resisted a five-year naval blockade by France and the United Kingdom? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

The article reads like it was written by an Argentine nationalist. It starts OK with:

"It was imposed in 1845 to support the Colorado Party in the Uruguayan Civil War and closed Buenos Aires to naval commerce."

But then goes off into speculation:

Britain did not have great interests at stake in Buenos Aires. The purpose of the war was to foster the Entente cordiale with France, so as to make possible later joint military operations elsewhere, such as the Opium War or the protection of the independence of the Republic of Texas. The British interests in South America grew when Texas was finally annexed by the United States. etc. etc.

It fails to describe fully any of the actions of the Argentine side that might have provoked the blockade.

It describes a battle that was actually lost by Argentina as if it were a victory. This reads like nationalist propaganda and must be bias.86.4.27.128 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not speculation, it's all in the references. Do you deny the existence of the first Entente cordiale or what? All the Argentine actions that led to this war are detailed at "Antecedents" and "Beginning of armed actions". As for the battle, t is just detailed. Let me cite: "By the end of the day, all batteries were destroyed, and the cannons were destroyed or taken as trophies. 250 Argentine soldiers died, and 400 were injured. The Anglo-French fleet stayed 40 days in Obligado, making repairs." Does that sound "as if it was a victory"? Have in mind that, although the battle of Vuelta de Obligado was an Argentine defeat, the battle of Quebracho was an Argentine victory, leading to the almost complete destruction of the convoy. That's what you found at the end of "Consequences of Obligado". Cambalachero (talk) 19:01, 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) 19:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text is based on ideologically motivated works by members of the nationalist "Revisionist" movement in Argentinean Historiography. And Rosas is a very important piece in their ideological constellation. it would be nice to give more modern points of view some space in these articles. - A reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9800:9504:7B33:D973:7310:557A:AC54 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, this is a pretty good article. I reviewed the references quick and found two issues. The websites should use {{

The info was already in the first book I used, and it was among the details I was going to deal with at a later time. I arranged the references to point this

talk) 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Lulu is not a "vanity press" in the usual perjorative sense, since it is used by established authors to reprint earlier work, as well by otheres to self-publish new material. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That agreement was signed 60 years after the event, so I don't think it could be fostering that - is there a different agreement being referenced here?

The one from 1904 is the second and most known, but the second entente cordiale, not the first. Cambalachero (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]