# Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I will take this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have made some minor edits. Reverse them if you are not happy with any of them.

Thanks, looks fine to me.  As an overall comment, thanks for the copyedit.  I disagree on a few of the comments being POV - mostly because there are references attached to the historian saying it, and the prose would become extremely grindy if everything is constantly prefaced by "according to historian X."  I do agree that "according to historian X" is needed for the overall analyses - the causes & effects of the revolt, etc.  But happy to chat it out, thanks again for the review!
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

Lead

"The proximate cause of the unrest was strong anti-Jesuit feelings among the Paraguayans". I do not think proximate is the right word as it means immediate. "Underlying" might be better.
Done.
"The beginnings of the "revolt" were quasi-legal at first." Why is revolt in quotes?
Because it wasn't exactly a revolt at first.  People in Asuncion certainly would have been surprised to learn they were in revolt.  That said, point, removed.
" Real Audiencia of Charcas". A a few words of explanation would be helpful. The legal authority for the Viceroyalty of Peru?
I agree it needs an explanation, but I don't want the lede to drag either.  It's explained below - hopefully the wikilink is sufficient?  The details are actually not THAT important for the context of the lede, all that matters is that there's a bureaucratic dispute between two separate governmental bodies going on.
"Antequera refused, citing the authority of the Audencia as superior to that of the Viceroy with the backing of the settlers." "the Viceroy with the backing of the settlers" is confusing. Perhaps "With the backing of the settlers, Antequera refused, citing the authority of the Audencia as superior to that of the Viceroy."
Done.
"Antequera's Paraguayan militia attacked an allied force of Jesuit mission Indians as well as Spanish colonial forces during the standoff and won a brief respite at the price of having lost the legitimacy of Antequera's claim of governorship. Now seen as clearly treasonous, a second force was sent by Castelfuerte." This is unclear. How about "Antequera's Paraguayan militia defeated an allied force of Jesuit mission Indians, as well as Spanish colonial forces, during the standoff, winning a brief respite. However, Antequera's claim of governorship was now seen as clearly treasonous, and a second force was sent by Castelfuerte."
I took a shot at rephrasing it - take a look?
Background

"Adalberto López calls it outright "strange"" Outright sounds a bit colloquial. I would leave it out.
Done.
"In order to pay the required tithe for the Indians," What required tithe? This needs explaining.
I added "required by the government" to be clear where the requirement is coming from.  Indians didn't have to pay taxes but did have to tithe to the Church as they were Christians, and the government basically collected the tithe for all the Indians in bulk from the administrators of the mission.  Do you think it's worth expanding more on this in the article?  I personally think that the logic of mandatory tithes in the Spanish Empire isn't THAT relevant, all that's relevant is that because the Jesuits were required to pay up for every Indian they had, they necessarily had to make money and enter the economy.
That sounds odd. So the Jesuits had to raise money for a church tithe and pay it to the Government? However the main point is that it is unclear what "this included" refers to. Perhaps something like "the Jesuits had to raise money by selling goods at market".
Changed around - the term Lopez uses is "tribute" that the Indians had to pay in silver, so actually me using tithe was misleading.  I changed it just to "royal taxes" and rephrased out "this included."  (It was meant to refer to "the Jesuit's new responsibilities" but fair enough that was too separated to be clear.)
"entitled to their own native wards under encomienda."What does this mean? Their own slaves?
Yes.  Just used "wards" over "slaves" since encomienda wasn't exactly slavery, just close.
I do not think the reader will understand this. Why not say slave as you have used the words enslaved and slavery above?
Done.
I have never heard of yerba mate. A few words of explanation would be useful.
Added.
1721-1725: Antequera's contested governorship

"Antequera was young, likable, handsome, intelligent, and unusually well-educated for the time." This is WP:POV and should be attributed to the historian who made the comment.
Is it really?  Young/handsome/well-educated are all objective to a degree - if people at the time said he was handsome, he was by definition effectively handsome no matter what someone might think of his potrait now.  "Likable" and "intelligent," perhaps, but again, this seems like something that historians can objectively agree upon - he made fast friends, he completed a lot of education and left behind some erudite writings, he apparently built an entire network of allies in Lima while in prison, etc.  The historian saying this also is, if anything, biased toward the Jesuits and against Antequera (Lopez).
Well we do not agree on that one. I think it should be attributed as "Adalberto Lopez describes Antequera as young..."
I've changed it to say this was written about him, but I'm still going to push back on this, mostly because I think it makes it seems like whether Antequera was smart/handsome/etc. is disputed, but the surrounding facts aren't.  Actually, this is something that Lopez makes clear is not really in dispute; he writes "Antequera was a handsome, alert, and likeable young man whose main faults seem to have been too much ambition and a streak of arrogance.  By the standards of his time his education was excellent and even his strongest critics admitted that he was an unusually intelligent person with a vast body of knowledge."  Lopez goes on to describe some of his known abilities, like translating Latin poetry & writing his own poetry & charming the members of the Audiencia of Charcas, and then Lopez himself cites all this heaping admiration to 6 different primary sources in his footnotes!  It seems very well attested to.
" Antequera earned the support and love" I would leave out "and love" as it does not sound encyclopedic.
I'll double-check the sources when I get a chance.  Even if it doesn't "sound" encyclopedic, cases where new leaders had a messiah-like reputation are not uncommon.
How about adulation?
Done.
"From most reports, Antequera comes across as mostly well-meaning; he sincerely believed imposing the civil authority upon the independent Jesuit missions would benefit the Empire." This should also be attributed as POV.
Yes, and it is?  That's the "most reports" part.  This isn't Lopez's opinion, this is Lopez summarizing the contemporaneous writings on Antequera.  Do you have a suggestion as to how to make that clearer?  I'd hoped that "reports" would more clearly indicate "views of the time."
How about "Antequera was generally viewed at the time as a man who meant well and sincerely believed that imposing the civil authority upon the independent Jesuit missions would benefit the Empire."
Hmm.  This is actually a good catch.  Re-reading my own cite, this is actually to Saegar, and Saegar doesn't cite his own reasons for this, merely some other contemporary people who agreed with Antequera's ideology.  So it seems more like this was Saegar's opinion.  Re-phrased to say so.
"that giving the chief judge of the case against Reyes the power to succeed him as Governor was illegal." It would be helpful if the fact that the Audencia gave Antequera this power was stated when describing his appointment above.
The problem is that this wasn't widely known.  I didn't include it in the article, but theoretically Antequera had a sealed box with instructions on what to do if Reyes was guilty, and he only unsealed it dramatically after Reyes was declared guilty that he'd be the new governor - so this was only revealed after his appointment.  (Of course, Reyes's supporters thought that Antequera knew already.)
I think that this is so important that it is worth explaining.
Added.
" The Audencia politely responded" I would leave out politely as POV.
Done.
"García Ros was a poor choice of leader if the intent was to quell the Paraguayans without a fight" This is POV and needs attributing.
Tried just stating the fact that he wasn't trusted by the Paraguayans which is pretty objectively true - you think it reads better now?
"nasty letters" Nasty is too colloquial. Perhaps hostile?
Done.
"a stern supporter of absolutist monarchy" Stern sounds POV. Perhaps strong.
I've tried "dedicated" if we want to be more flattering?  Not a huge fan of "strong," that could be misread to imply physical strength here.  I don't think "stern" is inaccurate for his character as a whole, though.
"Spooked" is colloqial. Perhaps frightened?
Done.
1725-1730: A temporary peace

"dueling reports". What does this mean? Conflicting reports?
It's something more direct than just "conflicting" - these reports actively said the other report was wrong, rather than simply being inconsistent.  Hopefully the introduction to the sentence makes clear what's going on?  If you still think it's a problem, I can just leave "dueling" out.
I think dueling is better left out.
Done.
1730-1735: The comuneros

"Barúa ineffectively demanded". Ineffectively is POV and redundant.
Done.
"Mompó likely wished to abolish the old governmental structure, but could not abolish the comunero-controlled cabildo directly". I do not understand this. It seems to be saying that Mompo supported the poor against the rich who controlled the cabildo, yet in the next paragraph it says that the mayor allowed the comuneros to control rural areas while arresting Mompo, implying that the comuneros were Mompo's supporters.
Different sets of comuneros, as noted in the next paragraph - the comuneros who got elected to the cabildo were less radical than the ones in the countryside.  I've taken a shot at a rephrase - take a look and see if it's clearer now?
I still find it confusing as you seem to be using the same word for radical and moderate comuneros, and it is not always clear which is meant. Could you revise so as to always refer to radical comuneros or moderate comuneros (except if you are referring to both)?
I added some more direct information about the split in the movement.  I don't want to make up terms here, unfortunately Lopez just calls them all comuneros and refers to them as just highly factionalized, so I've used Mompo's comuneros vs. Barreyo's comuneros.
"spooked" Comment as above.
Done.
"The leaders of the countryside were illiterate political non-entities who were not known to the notables of Asunción". This is POV. Perhaps "The notables of Asunción did not know the leaders of the countryside, and regarded them as illiterate nonentities."
I added "considered" - what do you think now?  (Also, of course it's POV in this case, but I hope I'm being clear that this is an "according to the cityfolk" type thing.  Plus the winners wrote the history books so it's hard to tell even now how much of this was true.)
I added a comma to make it clearer.
What is the Junta General? This is the first mention of it.
Cut it down to just "Junta."  Same as the Junta Gobernatvia.
"Zavala had blockaded the province regardless". Why regardless. I suggest deleting it.
Done.  (The intent was: If you wanted to trade, you had to get past both the Junta AND the Imperial forces of Zavala, so even if you got past / made nice with one, it still wouldn't work "regardless", hence the commerce really did come to a standstill.)
Later influence

"It had little in common with the Revolt of the Comuneros of New Granada or the Rebellion of Túpac Amaru II." It would be helpful to give the dates of these revolts.
Added.
"the Jesuits maintained their hated economic privileges." I do not think you have stated these privileges - but apologies if this is covered and I have missed it.
Mostly because the average reader wouldn't really care.  The short version is that the missions paid a different tax structure than the colonists.  The long version is that in this royalist era, "privileges" = "by your leave to do anything", so even something as simple as "allowed to compete in the yerba mate market" counts as a privilege.  I can go into this if you want, but probably in a new footnotes sections, and add the footnote in the background to discuss exactly what kind of "privileges" these were.
If resentment of the privileges was an important factor in the revolt, I think they need to be spelled out. If not, perhaps leave them out entirely.
Rather than spell it out, I went with "Jesuit missions continued to be a hated competitor driving down prices of the Paraguayan's cash crop."  The actual Paraguayans would be annoyed by this phrasing since in their minds it'd be special evil privileges, but this is accurate enough.
"Their theocratic states of total obedience to the Fathers". This is a bit puzzling. "The Jesuits'" would be better than "Their" for clarity, and is it correct to describe Jesuit controlled areas as states?
I've tried vanilla "missions."   They kind of were quasi-independent states to a degree, but "quasi-states" might raise more questions than it answers.  It's the whole "empire with an empire" meme, and the correct answer actually changes over time, so.
"they opposed the land-swap 1750 treaty of Madrid that placed several Jesuit missions in Portuguese territory". I do not understand this.
It's in the wikilink.  The Jesuit missions in what is now southern Brazil, but at the time controlled by Spain, revolted against Portuguese rule, and also the Jesuits said the Treaty was a bad idea.  I'm open to suggestions as to how to make this clearer, but why exactly the Jesuits lost favor in Portugal isn't TOO important, so I don't want to spend too many words on it.
I agree that the details are not important, so why not just say that the Jesuits lost favour in Portugal after Indians in Portuguese Jesuit missions revolted against Portuguese rule? I do not see the need to refer to the land swap and treaty.
Well, because that's why the revolt happened, the Jesuits didn't bring the Indians in line with orders to welcome our new and frankly kind of evil slaving Portuguese masters.  It also explains for modern readers why Brazil seems to control some of the mission territories in the modern map of the Jesuit missions.  The fact it was a new switch seems important to me, at least.  That said, the Marquis of Pombal isn't that important, so I cut that out, and made it more clear these were mission Indians revolting?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I only have access to the Saeger article, but checking against this the article seems to be accurate and verifiable, without original research. However, in some cases where a reference covers several sentences, the source only supports the last sentence - e.g. 5a and 9a.
Can you take a look at the references, especially 5a and 9a.

It is broad in its coverage.
Yes
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Yes

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Yes

It is stable.
Yes
No edit wars, etc.: 
Yes

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Yes

Overall:
This is a sound article which should pass GA. The prose queries are all fairly minor and should be easily fixed. However, the references do need checking.
Pass/Fail: 

I have put the article on hold while the comments are dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I got halfway through your comments and left a talk page reply over the weekend - but the replies got eaten somehow, which really killed my motivation to keep on going since I'd have to retype it.  I'll take another shot tonight. SnowFire (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are nearly there. I still think you go into too much detail about Portugal. I would just say that in [year] they were expelled from Portuguese territories. However, this is not a deal breaker. I have made a couple of minor changes which you can reverse if you do not like them.
The one point you have not dealt with is my comment on references, especially 5a and 9a. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Chopped down Portugal bit even further, but left the two wikilinks to the events in for those curious.  Added a few more references to make clear what's Lopez and what's Saegar - I'd been kind of hoping that the Lopez citations beyond the Saegar ones would extend back, but fair enough to make it a bit clearer. SnowFire (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I have passed this now. Congratulations on a first class article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The starting statement "The underlying cause of the unrest was strong anti-Jesuit feelings among the Paraguayans" is strongly misleading. This statement, and the article in general, identifies Paraguayans with Spanish/mestizo settlers of Asuncion; native Guranis were not anti-Jesuit - were they not Paraguayans? It would be much more accurate to replace "Paraguayans" with "inhabitants of Asuncion". The article presents only the point of view of one side, that of the oppressing encomenderos, and makes no attempt to be balanced. Chrystomath2 (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The context makes clear that "Paraguayans" specifically means the criollos & mestizos - "political" Paraguayans rather than "anyone living in the borders of Paraguay".  This kind of formulation is not unusual, especially for the time period where indigenous people were considered separate and apart from the Spanish Empire's state.  Not sure what to say other than "that's how the sources present it".  For example, North-West Rebellion refers to "Canadian troops" despite the fact that the Metis they fought against were Canadians too.  Yes, this is horrible, but it's the historical reality.  SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)