Talk:Capture of the frigate Esmeralda

Military history: Maritime / 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 not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	South American military history task force

Chile

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile 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.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

British volunteers in the Infobox

The British are a main part of this history, these people and their symbols must to be in the Infobox military conflict, and Mutawallis II you can't erase them.--Caminoderoma (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The forces of Chile are formed by nationals and foreigners, within the latter are the British. They are not a separate force, the separation does not respond to any logic of the Infobox. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of Template:Infobox military conflict is put any (units, formations, or groups) to improves reader understanding, as Invasion of Normandy. Not indicate separate forces. They are in the same side. The forces of this battle are formed by british foreign volunteers: Commanders, officers and sailors. Foreigners are few, because all where british combatants. No reason to delete it. --Caminoderoma (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the invasion of Normandy, all the indicated countries are belligerents. The British are mercenaries who serve Chile, as well as the other foreigners who were in the Chilean Navy. The only belligerents here are Chile and the Spanish Monarchy. The infofox does not respond under the logic of nationalities or ethnic groups, only belligerents. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents could be any, a country or not. In the moment of the battle Chile is not a country, is a war faction. The British Volunteers won the battle not the chilean people.--Caminoderoma (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The British are part of that war faction, not a separate entity, fought as mercenaries for Chile. therefore, the separation you intend is incongruent. Also keep in mind that the Chilean Navy was composed of Chileans, Americans and, to a lesser extent, other nationalities and ethnic groups. Not only British. --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the references say that the British was the main force that participating in this Battle, and some references say British fought alone, from the main commander Thomas Cochrane to the last sailor. There are not chileans in this battle. Only the insurgent government was chilean.--Caminoderoma (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only source where that is indicated is Pérez Turrado, and without basing his affirmation in anything. López Urrutia, based on the National Archive, points out that in this naval action there were Chileans. (Historia de la Marina de Chile, page 148) The British historian Brian Vale also points out the presence of Chileans. (Cochrane in the Pacific: Fortune and Freedom in Spanish America, page 113) --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I invite both editors to read MOS:FLAG which collects all guidelines on flag use. Flags primarily represent governments; the British government was not a party to this event. Flags should only be used to express the nationality of a person with a strong representation to the country associated with that flag in the context of the event (otherwise their use could be controversial or NPOV). I don't detect a strong representation here in the context of this event. The infobox doc does note smaller [groups] (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding but that would be if there was something like a British marine detachment, not individual volunteers of British nationality. I feel that a British flag would actually lead to a misunderstanding that the British government was directly involved. In regard to the Invasion of Normandy article, its infobox has forces of governments-in-exile but nothing like foreign mercenaries. Additionally, like the lead, the infobox should summarize information established in the article body, and I found no mention of British mercenaries. If it isn't significant enough to be anywhere in the article, then the information hasn't demonstrated notability for inclusion in the infobox, let alone the strong connection required for representation with a flag icon in the infobox. As the article currently stands, my opinion is strongly against a British flag in the infobox. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg:Sorry we do not talk about to put flags. We talk about if British Volunteers will be in belligerants or not. [1] All the sailors and commander was British, not chilean. It is not mentioned the nationality in the article however--Caminoderoma --Caminoderoma (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the British in the Chilean Navy do not form divisions or groups, they are individually hooked and integrated in the same way as the Chileans and other foreigners present in it. That is what Caminoderoma can not or does not want to understand. Making a separation is incongruous, because they are all part of the same force that serves Chile. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the commanders of the chilean squadron was British, and all the sailors British too. A little squadron do not have divisions (there was two groups of assault, both British). But the rules of the ships was British rules, the language used in the ships was english. Cochrane and the sailors do not talk in spanish. The insurgent goverement is not a country, it is a faction of war

--Caminoderoma (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the officers were British, not all. The crew was not British, was heterogeneous as there were Chileans, British, Americans and to a lesser extent other nationalities or ethnicities. The use of the English language is for practical reasons, but none of that changes the fact that they served Chile. Cochrane and all the members of the Chilean Navy responded to Chile. --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The insurgent goverment is not a country (as Islamic State). All the officers were British and majority of sailors were British too.

Under command of Lord Cochrane, the majority of the officers and sailors in the new Chilean Navy were from Britain.The navy list in 1818 -the year that Cochrane arrived in Chile- was dominated by British names, and in 1820 the majority of the fifty officers, and 1,600 sailors in the new Chilean Navy were from Britain.A History of the British Presence in Chile. William Edmunson. (2009)
All british and angloamericans. Gaspar Perez Turrado (1996).
The majority are British.Charles Fletcher(1900)

--Caminoderoma (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More Third Opinion: I did a little digging and found the 2006 discussion which led to the infobox documentation about including "smaller groups". There was a general feeling to not list foreign mercenary units as their own "combatants", to avoid listing nationalities of soldiers if these are not tied to a distinct political participant in the fighting, and that such were usually not named in the infobox but indicated in the article body. However, they did want to leave room for rare exceptions, such as when mercenary units were "acting independently" or where "a battle was fought almost exclusively by hired troops on one side" (with a particular note to Battle of Trenton).

In this instance, it seems to me that the volunteers were individually recruited into the Chilean Navy and not recruited as a unit. If Cochrane later singled out mostly-British (or anglophones) from the Chilean Navy to crew his ship, he's still drawing his forces from the Chilean Navy rather than taking British volunteers. So I am still on the opposition side for inclusion in the infobox.

This is about as far as I can go with this. If Caminoderoma wants to take this further, I would suggest that the nationality of these people and their exact status be established in the body of the article, assuming such can be cited to reliable sources for verification and noteworthiness. It's not easy to have meaningful discussion without doing that first. If that is done, and it can stand for a while without being challenged, then inclusion in the infobox might be revisited. At that point, if you need further help finding a consensus, I would suggest summarizing both sides of the dispute and bringing it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history for discussion (or inviting them here). – Reidgreg (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Ok, I will work in the article before the infobox. But other users should not delete this relevant information from the article, as it has been happening. But I will look to see the opinions, because it is a Naval combat and not terrestrial combat, and I will look for the information that may be missing, and include it in the article, to reach a consensus. Finding opinion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Naval_action_and_Infobox_military_conflict . Thank you. --Caminoderoma (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of Cubitt's book? --Muwatallis II (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of the frigate O'Higgins

Caminoderoma

Cubitt nowhere indicates the nationality of the 92 crew of the frigate O'Higgins. López Urrutia either. If you affirm that the 92 crew members were British and North American, what you do is interpret the information personally, since neither of the two authors expressly states that they were.

On the other hand, in Uribe's book, Chileans are mentioned in the crew of the frigate O'Higgins. Uribe cites the official part of Cochrane, where a list appears. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed this point previously. You change the consensus of the article with invents the data and original research. What you say is a totally false translation of books in Spanish. Cubit puts the numbers clear. --Caminoderoma (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me in which part Cubbit indicates that the 92 crew members of the frigate O'Higgins were British or North American. Nowhere does he do it. In fact, it is limited to making the distinction between the crew of the Lautaro and Independencia, because Cubitt handles only that reference ("List of Lautaro and Independencia boarding parties" at the end of the page, does not mention the "list of O'Higgins").

Uribe, in a list of some officers given by Cochrane himself, mentions Chileans in the crew of the O'Higgins. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make a false translation of the spanish. And Cubbit, in english, say the exact number of chileans.--Caminoderoma (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Lautaro and the Independencia it does it, because the historian has the "List of Lautaro and Independencia boarding parties", that appears in the references it places at the end of the page. Regarding the O'Higgins it says absolutely nothing, except the number of crew. He never points out that there were no Chileans, besides Uribe's reference indicates the presence of Chileans in O'Higgins. --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]