Talk:Portuguese conquest of the Banda Oriental

Multiple merge proposal

I propose merging to this article all the small stubs of the individual battles, unless one of them has scope for any significant expansion. I doubt we will find enough material to make much of these individual battles and also I think that the main article would be much more informative and useful if it included, with due weight, all that is now stated in these articles each. Here are the individual articles I am proposing for merging: Battle of Santa Ana (1816), Battle of Ibiraocaí, Battle of Carumbé, Battle of India Muerta, Battle of Sauce (1816), Battle of Pablo Perez, Battle of River Ibicuí (1817), Battle of Arapey, Battle of Catalán, Battle of Apósteles, Battle of San Carlos (1817), Battle of Arroyo Grande (1818), Battle of Tacuarembó. If any of the above articles has a reasonable scope of expansion beyond the brief mention it should have here, it should be further expanded in its own article. Hoverfish Talk 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I am also concerned about finding enough sources for the individual battles and the main article would be much more informative and will reduce any undue weight. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Against - As with all other wars on wiki, each battle is entlitled to its own article. They are not a singular strike. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming issues - Please discuss

Nowhere in Wikipedia do we refer to the Banda Oriental as Eastern Bank except in a parenthesis I see which is a wrong translation of the term in use, i.e. Banda Oriental. The correct translation would be "Eastern Strip", but it is name also not in use anywhere in Wikipedia, except in parenthesis. I see there is a dispute over the title of the article presently called Second Portuguese-Brazilian invasion of the Eastern Bank. I also see that this article, along with the series it is part of, which I have proposed for merging BTW, all refer to "Luso-Brazilian" wars. In my opinion, the whole thing, as presented is very confusing and a mere dispute about a title by two editors is not likely to make this any clearer. I suggest that the issue is brought up for discussion, including the merge proposal, which already has support. I would rather see some clear consensus and its result applied to the whole series of articles. Hoverfish Talk 12:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The sole article closely connected to this one which has reliable sources and is well built is Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre. It is a Featured Article I wrote and it deals with this conflict in the beginning. Until 1777 what is now Uruguay was divided in two pieces: one Portuguese and the other Spanish. Portugal gave its part in exchange for what is nowadays the western side of Brazilian south region. The entire territory that fell in the hands of Spain became known as the Estaern Bank until its conquest by the Portuguese and Brazilians in 1816. It was annexed as a Brazilian province with the name Cisplatina. This was the second invasion. The first invasion occurred in 1811 and it was a failure. There is no article so far about it in English Wikipedia. It was not a "Luso-Brazilian" invasion, that is, a invasion by Brazilians with Portuguese ancestry (because that's what "Luso-Brazilian" means). It was a invasion by Portuguese soldiers and Brazilian soldiers (that's what "Portuguese-Brazilian" means).

I'm quite experienced in here to know that this kind of discussion leads nowhere. A bunch of people who knows nothing about the subject try to impose their views, change the name to something that has little or nothing to do and the article goes on as always. That is, none of those people will try to actually improve the article. They won't add references, they won't expand, they won't make it better in any possible way. I guess the next step will be to open a move request where more people who have no real knowledge of what is under discussion will vote based on what the little they know. That's the good part of Wikipedia. It is a democracy for the ignorants. --Lecen (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some searches in Google books for the exact terms plus the word "Uruguay" (to filter some false positives). 213.000 for "Banda Oriental" here, 2.920 for "Eastern Bank" here, and 100 for "Eastern Strip" here. I also searched for the terms plus "Artigas", 166 for "Luso Brazilian" here and 145 for "Portuguese Brazilian" here. As for "Second", I understand that the Portuguese presence in 1811 was by request of Javier de Elío, who called them as reinforcements in his war against Artigas and Buenos Aires, and they returned to their country when diplomatically requested after the armistice of Buenos Aires and Montevideo. Cambalachero (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, the term "Luso-Brazilian" can mean "Portuguese–Brazilian" and often does (see Luso-Brazilian Review). The term "Eastern Bank" is not preferred in English to the term "Banda Oriental". Nobody knows what or where the Eastern Bank is. You should have opened an RM when your unilateral move was first opposed. I don't believe it is up to me to open a move request to restore the longer-standing name. Claiming expertise and accusing others of ignorance does not shift the onus away from you if it is you that wants the article title fundamentally changed. Srnec (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Srnec, the reason I opened this discussion was to stop having moves that do not respect a consensus. I have not seen any serious consensus yet and I do not consider your move any more valid than the one of Lecen. The explanation about Luso-Brazilian that Lecen gave is quite valid, as far as I can tell. The Banda Oriental I agree with. But in a half agreement between the two of us plus Cambalachero's stated stats, we do not come to a stable solution. Plus Lecen is quite right to point out the serious lack of reliable sources in most other relevant articles. His FA article is work we do respect around here. But calling Wikipedia a democracy for ignorants is in itself ignorance. Hoverfish Talk 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Lecen's work on featured articles is highly valued, but for just that reason he seems to think he can play the diva and get away with it. He moved the article unilaterally and I partially reverted him, trying to retain the longstanding title while adding a disambiguator to satisfy his complaint. I should not have had to take it to an RM at that stage, since bold-revert-discuss is well-recognised on Wikipedia as the appropriate dispute resolution procedure. He did not initiate a discussion here nor request a move, he just reverted me. He then chose to threaten: "If you do that again, I will report you." I have no idea who he thinks he will report me to, but I would not have reverted him again if he had not threatened. But I took it to be necessary so that he would understand that threats don't work here. At least not on me.

I don't accept his point about "Luso-Brazilian", since, for instance, the relationship between Britain and Canada is analogous to that between Portugal and Brazil and the term "Anglo-Canadian" is commonly used for mixed armies of British and Canadian troops in World War II. Likewise, the Franco-Prussian War was not a civil war fought between Prussians of French descent. The term "Luso-Brazilian" may indeed refer to Brazilians of Portuguese origin, but it may also refer to things that are both Portuguese and Brazilian, like the army that invaded the Banda Oriental in 1816. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that, after my comment, Lecen retired a comment from his talk page here, saying in the edit summary "Do as you want. I won't waste time with that discussion". So perhaps we should not discuss about him or his actions, as he has departed from this discussion, but just about the article title. Let's begin with some ordering, which are the options proposed so far? Cambalachero (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, we need at least some good history books to have inline citations. This article is unreferenced. From the point of view of consistent information and names across same-topic articles, first of all I see that "Banda Oriental" is the most used name while English translations vary. We have Easter Bank, Eastern Shore, Eastern Stripe, Eastern Province and possibly more. I think we should stick to the original, like we say "Rio Grande do Sul" and not "Rio Grande of the South". In Cisplatine War we talk about "Luso-Brazilian troops". The section is unreferenced. In Cisplatina (unreferenced) we talk about the "Luso-Brazilian Monarchy" invading the Eastern Province in 1816. No mention of the 1811 event. In Banda Oriental (unreferenced, stub class) instead of "Luso-Brazilian" and "invasion" it is stated that the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves conquered the southern part in 1817. Again no mention of the 1811 event. In Carlos Frederico Lecor, Viscount of Laguna we also talk about "Luso-Brazilian", but here sources are simply listed and no inline refs are given. To sum up: if we are going to use the term "Luso-Brazilian" across all articles we need at least a couple of good history books using this name as th main name.

Taking an intewiki tour, in the Portuguese Wikipedia the term preferred is "War against Artigas" também conhecida como Invasão Portuguesa de 1816, Segunda Invasão Portuguesa, Primeira Guerra Cisplatina ou Invasión Luso-Brasileña (nos países hispanófonos). The Spanish Wikipedia has it as La Invasión luso-brasileña, también conocida como Invasión portuguesa de 1816, Guerra contra Artigas (en Brasil) o Segunda Invasión portuguesa de 1816. Hoverfish Talk 10:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I must point as well that, although the name "Banda Oriental" is used liberally, both all around the project and even in some books, it was the "Provincia Oriental" ("Oriental province") at the time of the invasion. The rename was among the "instructions of the year XIII" that Artigas gave to the deputees that worked in the Assembly of the year XIII (1813), and it was officialy confirmed by the supreme director Gervasio Antonio de Posadas on march 7, 1814. It was also the name used when the 33 orientals liberated it, called the Congress of Florida and rejoined the United Provinces Cambalachero (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So when and how do we come to the name "Banda Oriental"? Hoverfish Talk 12:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Oh, I think I see. Do I get it right that Banda Oriental was the previous name, renamed to Provincia Oriental in 1813? If so since when do we find it as Banda Oriental? Hoverfish Talk 13:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The name "Banda Oriental" was used when the territory was part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a Spanish colony, and kept while it was still ruled by royalists. They were defeated by Brown and Alvear, who sieged and captured Montevideo, and then it was renamed as pointed. So, basically, the Banda Oriental was a province of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, and the Provincia Oriental a province of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I see information gaps in several articles that should be explaining this. Also I see Provincia Oriental redirecting to Cisplatina. I would be glad to translate some texts from the Spanish Wikipedia, was it not for the lack of sources. Banda Oriental should say much more, for one. What about correcting the title in this article to Provincia? Hoverfish Talk 23:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Name of this article

I changed the name of the article to "Portuguese conquest of the Banda Oriental" but it was reverted to "Luso-Brazilian invasion of the Banda Oriental (1816)", which is incorrect. My reasons for the change are:

1. There is already another article called Portuguese invasion of the Banda Oriental (1811–12); the previous and unsuccessful invasion
2. "Conquest" instead of "invasion" is far more appropriate, and it helps avoid confusion with the other article.
3. The name "Luso-Brazilian" is just wrong. It gives the notion that Brazilians of Portuguese ancestry conquered the Banda Oriental. The appropriate would be "Portuguese–Brazilian" to denote Portuguese and Brazilians. But even that label would be incorrect.
4. The use of "Brazilian" is just as wrong as "Luso-Brazilian". It would the same as to call "Argentines" the Hispanic-Americans who lived in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Brazil did not exist as nation, the people who lived in Brazil saw themselves as Portuguese subjects. Claim that "Brazilian" should be in the title merely because the name of the realm was "Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarves" is wrong, or else, we would have to call this war "Luso-Brazilian-Algarvian invasion".

Historian Roderick J. Barman, writing about the Brazilian independence, said "Thus the term 'Brazil', in common use during the eighteenth century, did not bear its modern meaning. As textual analysis confirms, the term did not yet denote a distinct society, one with a distinct culture and separate identity existing within clearly defined territorial boundaries–in short, a potential nation-state." (p.27)

He adds: "In the late colonial period the term could be used to convey several different meanings. In its precise sense, 'o Brasil' [the Brazil] referred to the Estado [State] set up in 1549 containing the captaincies of the northeast, center, and south, those under the oversight of the viceroy at Rio de Janeiro. In contrast, 'América Portuguesa,' or simply 'América,' referred to the totality of the New World colonies, so that there was no logical contradiction in a reference by the minister of the colonies in 1788 to the captaincies 'which compose the dominions of Brazil and [emphasis added] Portuguese America.'" (p.27)

And more: "That the term did not bear its modern sense is also apparent from the meaning then carried by the adjective deriving from it, brasileiro [Brazilian]... On the rare occasions when people did need an adjective to express a New World social and cultural identity, they never employed the word brasileiro". (pp.27–28)

Source: Barman, Roderick J. (1999). Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-3510-0.

Thus, I propose to change the title to simply "Portuguese conquest of the Banda Oriental". It's straightforward and leaves no room to confusions. --Lecen (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, I do not know under what name students in Uruguay or Argentina are taught this historical event, but it is historically clear that Brazil was not a nation until 1822. Additionally I notice a complete lack of sources in the article named Luso-Brazilian invasion of the Banda Oriental (1816), so until I see some valid sources presented there and showing that this name is used in some academic or equally notable way to describe the event, I support the title "Portuguese..." in stead of "Luso-Brazilian". Hoverfish Talk 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The cases of the names of Brazil and Argentina are not similar. Although there were reported usages, the first formal uses of the name "Argentina" took place after the declaration of independence. But Brazil did not come come into existence when it declared independence: there was a State of Brazil since centuries ago, raised to Kingdom of Brazil in 1815 and incorporated into the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. So yes, there is a Brazil in 1816. The point that "Brazil" did not mean the same thing now and then is interesting but byzantine: as far as I can check, the war was not waged by such a Portuguese but non-Brazilian colony in the New World, so which is the point? In fact, if we check again, of the 3 kingdoms of the united kingdom, it was the kingdom of Brazil the one most clearly involved.

And second: invasion and conquest are not the same thing. In an invasion, state X attacks state Y, and a territory that used to be under control of Y is now under control of X. In a conquest, the defeated state is subjugated by the victor, as in the conquest of the Aztec Empire. With that difference in mind, the military event described in this article is clearly an invasion, not a conquest. Cambalachero (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Historians share a different opinion: "...only in 1816 when the Voluntários d'El Rei had invaded the Banda Oriental; not until 1820 had the conquest been completed." (Barman 1988, p.106) --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Conquest "Banda Oriental" 1816: 455 google book results. Invasion "Banda Oriental" 1816: 2,130 results Cambalachero (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I'd like to express my opinion on the title of the article. First off, the issue of Portuguese vs. Luso-Brazilian. The event having taken place in 1816, the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and the Algarves had already been established. Contrary to the British United Kingdom, which was a union of formerly independent monarchies and nations, the Portuguese United Kingdom constituted only one historical crown, the Portuguese crown, and one nation (or nationality), the Portuguese people. The whole creation of the UKPBA was because it was unfit for the monarch of a noble and ancient European monarchy to be living in a mere colony. There was no historical Brazilian crown nor a historical Brazilian people that were joining in union; all were Portuguese. To say Luso-Brazilian is to create distinction between a people that were a singular Portuguese people, and thus Portuguese is the preferred and logical choice, not Luso-Brazilian. Second of all, invasion vs. conquest. As we all know, this was one of two attempts by the Portuguese Empire to annex the Banda Oriental. The first invasion was unsuccessful, and thus it can have no name other than invasion, as its result was a failure. The second attempt was a success. The Portuguese Empire successfully conquered the Banda Oriental, meaning it had invaded and succeeded. An invasion is not inherently successful, but conquest is. If we look at it from a logical point of view, using the term "conquest" would not only allow the two articles to exist without confusion, but it would create the distinction that shows that this attempt was successful. Lastly, Banda Oriental vs. Eastern Bank. I think we can all agree that Banda Oriental is the better choice. It creates no confusion, eastern bank is such a plane and indescriptive term that it really isn't a proper noun. Banda Oriental is unique in English as referring to this part of South America. I hope that we may all discuss this name logically and efficiently and reach a decision that is correct and helpful, in a timely manner. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

To start from the last item, I find the use the terms "Banda Oriental" quite appropriate in the English Wikipedia, just as I find "Río de la Plata" preferable to "River Plate". I think the opposite would create confusion instead of helping in any meaningful way. However, in the period under question the official name was not "Banda Oriental" but "Provincia Oriental", and this became "Provincia Cisplatina" in 1817. Can you address this issue, please. Second, in your explanations about the issue of conquest/invasion, I find one point left out which is important in the history of Uruguay and for some reason it is not given enough weight here, neither in other connected articles. The official book taught to the second year of the Secondary Education in Uruguay states that the Spanish Viceroy of Montevideo, Francisco Javier de Elío during Rondeau's siege of Montevideo, asked for military help from Portugal (through princess Carlota). So in this sense, neither term is quite correct, though the same schoolbook continues to mention the invasion of 7000 soldiers from Brazil (as location rather than nation). Actually, I have been working to expand Banda Oriental and you will notice that I am stuck in exactly this period and for this I am waiting for other connected articles to become consistent with each other before I can formulate it without contradicting them. I have to make sure that no one's history book (Argentina, Uruguay or Brazil) predominates, but that all three versions (where different) are equally mentioned. Hoverfish Talk 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

By points:

1. I don't think we are discussing in here whether we should use "Banda Oriental" or "Eastern Bank". We can ignore it.
2. Historians use the name "Banda Oriental", even when talking about the 1816-20 conflict, to describe the geographical region, regardless if it was called Banda Oriental, Província Oriental, Cisplatina, Uruguay, etc 9in different moments during the 19th century)... I believe this is another point we should ignore for the sake of simplicity.
3. Indeed Elío asked Portugal for assistance. Thus, from his point of view the Portuguese didn't invade, they entered the Banda Oriental. But we have to use the term employed by historians, which is described as "invasion". I beieve we can use the word "invasion" and point that Elío requested aid. I really believe this is not an issue. However, I still belive we should use the word "conquest" merely to avoid confusion with the earlier and closely related military conflict. If not, we should call this article "Portuguese invasion of the Banda Oriental (1816-20)". But since everyone seems to agree that "Portuguese conquest of the Banda Oriental" is better, I don't think we should argue about it too.
4. We cannot forget that this is the Wikipedia in English. We are supposed to use sources in English. When those aren't enough, we may use sources in other languages to fill the gaps.

That's it. --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The diference between "invasion" and "conquest" is very subtle and specific to military jargon for the common reader to serve as a useful disambiguation. Besides, the term "invasion" without further clarifications denotes a sucessful invasion, if it was not, it should go with other terms, as in "planned invasion" or "invasion attempt". The year of each military operation is already a good DAB element. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Regardless who is more correct, changing the title of the article all the time is not going to solve the problem. It seems to me that editors from Argentina for some reason that I don't understand, prefer the term Luso-Brazilian, and editors from Brazil are adamant that it should be Portuguese. The conquest-invasion issue seems to be irrelevant. Hoverfish Talk 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean the editors just from Argentina, as not only Brazilian editors believe it should be Portuguese, but Portuguese editors and others. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction Cristiano Tomás and my apology for the mistake. So to sum up, I see at least three editors in this talk page who agree to the term "Portuguese" and so I take this to be consensus here. As for the year (1816) in the title, in spite of there having been no other such "conquest", and therefore having no disambiguating value, I find it very helpful to be mentioned with the event. Hoverfish Talk 17:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lecen that the term "Portuguese" is better suited for the article in English (it's a different matter in Spanish). However, the usage of the term "conquest" is not supported by most sources (see [1]). These for the most part call it the "Portuguese invasion of the Banda Oriental in 1816" and sometimes use the date of "1816-19". It is also worth noting that, from a Uruguayan POV, the subsequent situation is seen as a Brazilian occupation (rather than a "conquest"). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent developments in the article

I see the article expanding but still no references to anything verifiable. I know that in the Spanish Wikipedia this happens quite often, but not so in the English one. Can someone please state the source he is using. It doesn't have to be in English and it doesn't have to be online. It can be a book given it has an ISBN. Hoverfish Talk 01:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summaries, for the moment I'm merely translating the article in Spanish, which is a featured one. When that part is done, I will check the sources of that article and move them here as well if I confirm that they say what the article says. In this case, I find it easier to fix a complete but unreferenced article (the one that will be here when the translation finishes) than to build the article from scratch. Cambalachero (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason given in the lead for the lack of sources for this topic is in itself Original Research and as such it will have to be removed. Hoverfish Talk 00:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I read several times the article and I remain with the impression that it sounds like a dissertation. I hope to be proven wrong soon, as I really appreciate the work done. There are several statements that need to be placed in NPOV, like when naming who the "belligerents" were, or what the "artiguist privateers" were and what they were up to. Such statements have to be placed in the format "according to (source A), so and so". Else they show POV bias. Hoverfish Talk 02:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Explanation for move

I changed the title of the article back to what had been discussed and agreed on this talk page. Both Cambalachero and MarshalN20 were banned indefinitely from editing all articles related to the history of Latin America. --Lecen (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2022

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. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Portuguese conquest of the Banda Oriental → Luso-Brazilian invasion of the Banda Oriental – See talk page. Torimem (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This article's name, simply put, is just wrong. It should be Portuguese-Brazilian/Luso-Brazilian conquest/invasion of the Banda Oriental. My point of contention is just the Portuguese-Brazilian part, but first a few things to consider:

1. Yes, I know the issue has been discussed before;

2. No, I don't think the arguments used to move the article to its current name are correct nor valid.

Here's why:

1. The current name of this article gives the impression the invasion was carried out solely by Portuguese troops, that is, soldiers from the Kingdom of Portugal, itself a constituent kingdom of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves. Naturally, that was not the case. The invasion was carried out by Brazilian troops as well, a mixed army with troops from both kingdoms, Brazil (a kingdom since 1815) and Portugal.

2. To call it simply "Portuguese invasion..." completely ignores this historical fact.

3. Arguing that Brazil "was not independent" to support the current name is simply wrong. Both kingdoms had EQUAL status within the union. By that logic one could argue Portugal wasn't independent either, which sounds ridiculous.

4. The same goes to the argument that Brazil "didn't exist". It wasn't a separate entity, but neither was Portugal. Imagine arguing that the state of Texas doesn't "exist" simply because it is part of the United States.

5. As I've stated above, Brazil was a kingdom with EQUAL political status within the union, not subject to Portuguese authority in a relation of a colony with a colonial nation. In fact, it was precisely because Portuguese nationals wanted to break off this equal status relation that Brazilian independence happened, which leads us to point 2.

6. Once again, the invasion was carried out by Brazilian troops (born in the Kingdom of Brazil) and Portuguese troops (born in the Kingdom of Portugal). As an example:

"Along the Catalan stream, on the left bank of the Quaraim, the Marquis of Alegrete, marching with 1,200 Paulistas of the three arms and 1,200 Rio-grandense cavalrymen..." (source: p. 86)

Or yet:

"Lieutenant-Colonel José de Abreu (later general and baron of Cerro Largo), at the head of 640 troops from São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul, attacked and took José Artigas camp in Potrero de Arapeí" (source: p. 34)

7. The term "Luso-Brazilian" (Luso-Brasileña / Luso-Brasilera / Luso-Brasileira / Lusobrasileira, etc) is widely used by scholars when referring to this event.

Thus, I propose moving this article to "Luso-Brazilian invasion/conquest...", as it is the most appropriate name given the considerations above and the most common name rationale.

Torimem (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Against this issue has been hashed out already and none of these arguments personally change my perspective on the discussion.Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons previously stated. Brazil was not independent of and an equal to Portugal at this point, terminology and theory of the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves notwithstanding. Both were absolutely under the same Portuguese regime. In the same way, neither were Canada or the United States independent of France and Britain during the French and Indian War which was fought by forces largely composed of colonials. Nor do we include Scotland, Wales, England, and Wales in the names of wars or invasions in which the United Kingdom has participated or consider that components of such unions act independently of the whole in such conflicts. • Astynax ^talk 17:29, 22 November 2022 (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.