![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been wholly copied from http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/paraguay.html. The External Link is not the proper way to cite the source. Furthermore, the original article at the site above carries copyright notice, but perhaps the authors are one and the same.
That I know Guaraní was not originally spoken in Paraguay, it was brought there by Jesuits. Can anyone check?
Guarani was not a language brought by the Jesuits. It was a language spoken by the native indigenous population for hundreds of years before the spanish arrived. Currently, more than 90% of the population speaks Guarani and Spanish. - Mariscal8
The Jesuits learned Guarani, the lingua franca of an important number of native tribes across the region, in order to facilitate their missionary efforts. Thus Guarani became a protected language, and this move contributed in no small degree to its survival until today. Aldo L ( talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Jesuits did create a writing system for Guarani, which did not exist prior to their arrival. Dardanelle ( talk) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
cant ANYONE do some anthropological research, geez! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.51.67 ( talk) 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
There is NOTHING on this!
The "communisme" article in the French "Dictionnaire Encyclopedique" (Larousse-Bordas, 2000) talks, in his "History" part, about the application of the communist principles in Paraguay by the Jesuits between 1612 and 1767. Can someone point me to some further reading on the subject?
I'm really puzzled, I never thought the Jesuits could be in some way attached to common property principles. Dpotop 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Talking about 'communist principles' is pointless, especially regarding 17th century imperialistic religious orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 ( talk) 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The missions were essentially communist in action, but since communism is also an ideology created in the 19th century, they weren't Communists. All property was collectively owned and the missions were run as collective units. Private property was forbidden. However the missions were actually theocratic totalitarian communes, quite different from Marx's atheistic Communism. Dardanelle ( talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is riddled with points of view, hardly any of which are substantiated. Independent citations are needed to justify the many claims made, and it needs a complete rewrite from top to bottom. Approximately 90 per cent of the article is uncited, and any editor would be quite justified in removing those parts, leaving just a few lines from the last section remaining. Skinsmoke ( talk) 03:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Wikipedia's efficacy depends on removing this type of entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 ( talk) 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is some useful advice from WP:OVERLINK:
I hope this explains why I have removed so many links form this article.
Here are just some of the links that you have re-added to common terms with no particular relationship to the article:
The point of WP:OVERLINK is that these are "terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of... religions... common professions, common units of measurement...." These words do not have meanings in this article that are different from the usual English language meanings, or particular relevance here beyond what those words means. These are not technical terms, jargon or slang. They are everyday English words. And yes, the average reader will understand what dictatorship is, or an economy or a newspaper. If you disagree with WP:OVERLINK, you can propose changes to it on that guideline's talk page, but I strongly urge you not to oppose it by picking random articles and linking plain English words.
Some more specific examples:
I encourage you to re-read WP:OVERLINK and take a serious look at these words again. I think it may also be useful to ask other editors to comment on this disagreement. Ground Zero | t 13:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am looking forward to having others weigh in on this discussion. I don't think that you and I are going to see eye to eye on this. I do not understand how you think that "revolt empire rebellion monarchy coalition alliance sovereignty legislature immigrant occupation" are "not necessarily widely known (especially outside the US)". More to the point, the meanings they have in this context are their common English language meanings. These words would be easily understood by any reasonably educated native English speaker or moderately proficient non-native speaker. These are not difficult concepts, or being used differently in this article. Same for "climate poverty embassy censorship railroad sailor lawyer murder obese jungle coast climate monument chapel loan scandal". "Airplane crash" may well be an interesting article, but airplane crashes are not an unusually important part of Paraguayan history. The concept is explained in the phrase - it is the crash of an airplane. I think everyone will get that without clarification. Ground Zero | t 14:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The country’s [[Spanish Empire|colonial]] history was one of general calm
…
“ | The country’s colonial history was one of general calm… | ” |
“ | Paraguay’s colonial history was one of general calm… | ” |
[[Politics of Paraguay|democracy]]
have unintentionally been aliased in a way that makes the reader unlikely to recognize their highly targeted and germane nature. The article needs work.The trend of all the different-language Wikipedias since 2006 has been an inexorable reduction in the percentage of words linked per article precisely because the community realized that just because an article can be linked to doesn’t mean it helps the reader quickly understand the subject at hand.
The article really suffers from a wide variety of shortcomings right now. With 17,259 words in the body text alone and far too few graphics placed far down into the article, it is tedious and boring. The article is ginormous. When one starts to edit it, one is met with automated advise that reads “This page is 119 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.” That advise should have been heeded quite some time ago. Not only should this article be trimmed and/or split up into other articles, it could really benefit from greater effort adding decorative and interesting graphics to spruce it up. It has clearly suffered from “too many cooks in the kitchen” and insufficient WP:Boldness by a shepherding editor with a keen eye on the big picture. A dry, over-linked, bloated article suffering from edit-wars is the result. Greg L ( talk) 19:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Too many links create what specific problems? I suppose it's a small problem if there are so many links that the blue type and underlining are distracting, but outside of stylistic concern, is there really a problem with having too many links that affects an entry's usefulness? On the other hand, there is a search bar at the top of every Wikipedia entry, if someone doesn't know what a convent is they can type it in there themselves, or use one of many search engines or online dictionaries, most of which are available without fee. Also, isn't the point of having a multi-language Wikipedia that the English entries don't have to be written in 'simplified English'? If someone isn't a native English speaker, can they not look up Paraguay in a language they understand better than English? Not taking sides, just some thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 ( talk) 16:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC) use the only language in English to be more understanding in your own language→English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.84.178 ( talk) 16:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
i love ninjas The War of the Seven Reductions article mentions that the war started when the Jesuit obeyed the King - and that it's the Indians that didn't obeye the order to move away. Is "jesuit-inspired" the right word then ? Is it actually correct to say that a war can be "inspired" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farialima ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There ought to be a section about the Franciscan reductions. Since the franciscans were never kicked out, they probably had more long term influence than the jesuits. The Bradt guidebook to Paraguay has a lot of information about this, I'll try and take some notes next time I've got my hands on a copy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanelle ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Paraguay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The file Flag of Paraguay June 1811.svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Section 5.1 on Francia (and possibly other sections as well) seems to have some problems with neutrality. Sweeping generalizations and biased statements are presented as plain facts without any citations or references to scholarly sources.
Just to give a few examples of statements that are clearly biased (these were all presented without any citations):
"Frugal, honest, competent, and diligent, Francia was popular with the lower classes of Creoles and native peoples."
"In contrast to other states in the region, Paraguay was efficiently and honestly administered, stable, and secure"
"An extremely frugal and honest man, Francia left the state treasury with at least twice as much money in it as when he took office"
"All of Paraguay's accomplishments during this period, including its existence as a nation, were attributed almost entirely to Francia." (by whom??)
The section also has a general problem with lack of references, as nearly all concrete statements are unsourced. While most of them are probably true and written with good will, extra caution should probably be applied given the already existing problems with lack of neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.247.180.132 ( talk) 10:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been wholly copied from http://www.historyofnations.net/southamerica/paraguay.html. The External Link is not the proper way to cite the source. Furthermore, the original article at the site above carries copyright notice, but perhaps the authors are one and the same.
That I know Guaraní was not originally spoken in Paraguay, it was brought there by Jesuits. Can anyone check?
Guarani was not a language brought by the Jesuits. It was a language spoken by the native indigenous population for hundreds of years before the spanish arrived. Currently, more than 90% of the population speaks Guarani and Spanish. - Mariscal8
The Jesuits learned Guarani, the lingua franca of an important number of native tribes across the region, in order to facilitate their missionary efforts. Thus Guarani became a protected language, and this move contributed in no small degree to its survival until today. Aldo L ( talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Jesuits did create a writing system for Guarani, which did not exist prior to their arrival. Dardanelle ( talk) 16:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
cant ANYONE do some anthropological research, geez! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.51.67 ( talk) 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
There is NOTHING on this!
The "communisme" article in the French "Dictionnaire Encyclopedique" (Larousse-Bordas, 2000) talks, in his "History" part, about the application of the communist principles in Paraguay by the Jesuits between 1612 and 1767. Can someone point me to some further reading on the subject?
I'm really puzzled, I never thought the Jesuits could be in some way attached to common property principles. Dpotop 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Talking about 'communist principles' is pointless, especially regarding 17th century imperialistic religious orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 ( talk) 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The missions were essentially communist in action, but since communism is also an ideology created in the 19th century, they weren't Communists. All property was collectively owned and the missions were run as collective units. Private property was forbidden. However the missions were actually theocratic totalitarian communes, quite different from Marx's atheistic Communism. Dardanelle ( talk) 19:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is riddled with points of view, hardly any of which are substantiated. Independent citations are needed to justify the many claims made, and it needs a complete rewrite from top to bottom. Approximately 90 per cent of the article is uncited, and any editor would be quite justified in removing those parts, leaving just a few lines from the last section remaining. Skinsmoke ( talk) 03:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Wikipedia's efficacy depends on removing this type of entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 ( talk) 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is some useful advice from WP:OVERLINK:
I hope this explains why I have removed so many links form this article.
Here are just some of the links that you have re-added to common terms with no particular relationship to the article:
The point of WP:OVERLINK is that these are "terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of... religions... common professions, common units of measurement...." These words do not have meanings in this article that are different from the usual English language meanings, or particular relevance here beyond what those words means. These are not technical terms, jargon or slang. They are everyday English words. And yes, the average reader will understand what dictatorship is, or an economy or a newspaper. If you disagree with WP:OVERLINK, you can propose changes to it on that guideline's talk page, but I strongly urge you not to oppose it by picking random articles and linking plain English words.
Some more specific examples:
I encourage you to re-read WP:OVERLINK and take a serious look at these words again. I think it may also be useful to ask other editors to comment on this disagreement. Ground Zero | t 13:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am looking forward to having others weigh in on this discussion. I don't think that you and I are going to see eye to eye on this. I do not understand how you think that "revolt empire rebellion monarchy coalition alliance sovereignty legislature immigrant occupation" are "not necessarily widely known (especially outside the US)". More to the point, the meanings they have in this context are their common English language meanings. These words would be easily understood by any reasonably educated native English speaker or moderately proficient non-native speaker. These are not difficult concepts, or being used differently in this article. Same for "climate poverty embassy censorship railroad sailor lawyer murder obese jungle coast climate monument chapel loan scandal". "Airplane crash" may well be an interesting article, but airplane crashes are not an unusually important part of Paraguayan history. The concept is explained in the phrase - it is the crash of an airplane. I think everyone will get that without clarification. Ground Zero | t 14:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The country’s [[Spanish Empire|colonial]] history was one of general calm
…
“ | The country’s colonial history was one of general calm… | ” |
“ | Paraguay’s colonial history was one of general calm… | ” |
[[Politics of Paraguay|democracy]]
have unintentionally been aliased in a way that makes the reader unlikely to recognize their highly targeted and germane nature. The article needs work.The trend of all the different-language Wikipedias since 2006 has been an inexorable reduction in the percentage of words linked per article precisely because the community realized that just because an article can be linked to doesn’t mean it helps the reader quickly understand the subject at hand.
The article really suffers from a wide variety of shortcomings right now. With 17,259 words in the body text alone and far too few graphics placed far down into the article, it is tedious and boring. The article is ginormous. When one starts to edit it, one is met with automated advise that reads “This page is 119 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.” That advise should have been heeded quite some time ago. Not only should this article be trimmed and/or split up into other articles, it could really benefit from greater effort adding decorative and interesting graphics to spruce it up. It has clearly suffered from “too many cooks in the kitchen” and insufficient WP:Boldness by a shepherding editor with a keen eye on the big picture. A dry, over-linked, bloated article suffering from edit-wars is the result. Greg L ( talk) 19:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Too many links create what specific problems? I suppose it's a small problem if there are so many links that the blue type and underlining are distracting, but outside of stylistic concern, is there really a problem with having too many links that affects an entry's usefulness? On the other hand, there is a search bar at the top of every Wikipedia entry, if someone doesn't know what a convent is they can type it in there themselves, or use one of many search engines or online dictionaries, most of which are available without fee. Also, isn't the point of having a multi-language Wikipedia that the English entries don't have to be written in 'simplified English'? If someone isn't a native English speaker, can they not look up Paraguay in a language they understand better than English? Not taking sides, just some thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.145.141 ( talk) 16:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC) use the only language in English to be more understanding in your own language→English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.84.178 ( talk) 16:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
i love ninjas The War of the Seven Reductions article mentions that the war started when the Jesuit obeyed the King - and that it's the Indians that didn't obeye the order to move away. Is "jesuit-inspired" the right word then ? Is it actually correct to say that a war can be "inspired" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farialima ( talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There ought to be a section about the Franciscan reductions. Since the franciscans were never kicked out, they probably had more long term influence than the jesuits. The Bradt guidebook to Paraguay has a lot of information about this, I'll try and take some notes next time I've got my hands on a copy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanelle ( talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Paraguay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The file Flag of Paraguay June 1811.svg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Section 5.1 on Francia (and possibly other sections as well) seems to have some problems with neutrality. Sweeping generalizations and biased statements are presented as plain facts without any citations or references to scholarly sources.
Just to give a few examples of statements that are clearly biased (these were all presented without any citations):
"Frugal, honest, competent, and diligent, Francia was popular with the lower classes of Creoles and native peoples."
"In contrast to other states in the region, Paraguay was efficiently and honestly administered, stable, and secure"
"An extremely frugal and honest man, Francia left the state treasury with at least twice as much money in it as when he took office"
"All of Paraguay's accomplishments during this period, including its existence as a nation, were attributed almost entirely to Francia." (by whom??)
The section also has a general problem with lack of references, as nearly all concrete statements are unsourced. While most of them are probably true and written with good will, extra caution should probably be applied given the already existing problems with lack of neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.247.180.132 ( talk) 10:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)