Talk:Los Andes vs Prueba

Not neutral

The article only contemplates what Spanish historiography indicates, without taking into account what Chilean historiography says, which has great differences with respect to the result and several other details. I proceed to make changes in the article to balance what Chilean and Spanish historiography says. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

I also change the title of the article, since this title has no historiographical reference and there is also controversy in the exact place of the battle at the beginning. Los Andes vs Prueba is a neutral title and is a form that has been used in other articles such as: USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente and USS Enterprise vs Flambeau. --Muwatallis II (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

There are not controversy of historiography about the name of the battle or the result of victory of spanish ship.--Caminoderoma (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There are two versions of the facts. Both must be presented. This is not debatable (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). --Muwatallis II (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I just requested a third opinion to resolve this matter. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

For further observation of the editor who will make the third opinion. This is the article that Caminoderoma has created (Battle of Cape Manglares), which only includes what Spanish historiography indicates, omitting what Chilean historiography indicates. Between both historiografías great differences exist with respect to the battle. I developed a version that balanced both historiographies (Los Andes vs Prueba); however, the other editor has separated it into two articles, refusing to balance it. Caminoderoma has acted against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Muwatallis II (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on article context, article title, and neutrality):

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and am currently reviewing the issues. I shall replace this text shortly with my reply. I have made no previous edits on Los Andes vs Prueba and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

Dusti (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (Muwatallis II)

The problem is the following. The editor Caminoderoma created this article about a naval battle between a Chilean and a Spanish ship,(Here) but based solely on references from Spanish historiography. I realized this and I did not consider it neutral, since what Chilean historiography indicates about this battle was missing. It happens that there are several differences between what the Spanish and Chilean historiography indicate of the battle as for example the exact date, the precise place of the battle, the result, among others. I edited this article balancing both versions (Chilean and Spanish) of the battle, presenting them in a neutral way. (Los Andes vs Prueba) However, the editor Caminoderoma refuses to accept both versions, imposing what Spanish historiography points out. Caminoderoma has created another article in the same battle with the Spanish version of the battle.(Battle of Cape Manglares) This is not neutral and I think it should be my edition that remains, since it contemplates what both historiographies indicate. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) --Muwatallis II (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Commentary: The original name of the article "Battle of Cape Manglares" is also an invented name. No historian calls it that way. Some historians of Colombia and Ecuador call it "battle of Punta Galera", referring to that geographical area as a meeting point. But the problem is that the Chilean and Spanish historiography at no time mention "Punta Galera", so that name also lacks neutrality. "Los Andes vs Prueba" (referring to the name of the opposing ships) is neutral in my opinion, since in that way the title is not opposed to the differences that exist in the historiography on the exact geographic point of the battle

When Caminoderoma says "My point of view is neutral. The chilean ship was defeated, although the Chilean historians are silent about the outcome of the battle." what it does is interpret the information, concluding that Spaniards tell the truth and Chileans lie. Making assertions of that type goes against Wikipedia's neutrality rules. Both versions should be taken into account, what Caminoderoma does not do.

In summary, in this matter there are two historiographical positions and both must be respected. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) Caminoderoma only seeks to impose a position. It would be the same thing that I wanted to impose the Chilean version, stating that it is a Chilean victory. Therefore, before such a large historiographical difference, the battle should be considered as "Indecisive" and in the body of the article, both versions should be balanced, as I did when I edited the article. --Muwatallis II (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Cami just wants bias pro-Peru/Argentina. He is the true and sole problem. --Apache207 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Caminoderoma)

sites: Punta Galera, Cape Manglares, Gorgona Island, Iscuande river

The Chilean and Spanish historiography agree that after the battle the Chilean ship gets into the Iscuandé river, and that the Chilean ship was stranded on the Iscuandé river, and never left the river. Both agree that the Chilean ship was lost.

The iscuandé river has a very scarce and variable depth of 0.5 - 4 meters which makes it impossible not to fester there for the draft of a tonnage of a corvette or a small frigate (400 tons!), "Impracticable".p192 Vela 2017 [1] Chilean and Spanish sailors already knew that shallow river before.

No information has been misunderstood or changed by me. The Chilean historiography does not give any explanation to why Illinworth put his ship inside the Iscuandé river. Illinworth omit giving no explanation in his report of the battle. Illinworth no return to Chile and joined to the Colombians. Chilean historiography only takes the Illinworth report of the battle, with the chilean ship stranded inside the river Iscuande. But the ship never left the river. The chileans also omits Vacaro's report (or any other Spanish or foreign reports). Vácaro says he saw the corvette go into the Iscuandé river the next day of the battle. Vacaro, and the Spanish frigate, remains until May 21 on Gorgona Island, looking the mouth of the Iscuandé River. On May 30, the viceroy is informed that Spanish troops on the ground find the chilean corvette abandoned and burned on the banks of the Iscuandé River. Spanish historians say that Illinworth give amount of fantastic data that the English man wrote on their report, and unfortunately have been copied in many Chilean sources without any contrast- ("dada la cantidad de hechos fantasiosos que el inglés redactó en su parte, y que lamentablemente han sido reproducidas en muchas fuentes chilenas sin ningún tipo de contraste"). p193 Vela 2017 [2]

The name of the article was Battle of Cape Manglares or Punta Galera when article was created [3], but later the name was changed by Muwatallis [4]. The name "Los Andes vs. Prueba" is an invented name of Muwatallis ( Wikipedia:No original research ). The combat is historically known by geography as Cabo Manglares or Punta Galera. I put neutral geographical name. The Spanish historiography say the name "Destruction of the Chilean national corvette Rosa de los Andes".p191(Rubén Vela y Cuadros (2017). Presas De La Armada Española 1779-1828. ISBN 978-84-697-6007-9.) o "Punta Manglares". The Colombians say "Combate de Punta Galera"(La emancipación del Ecuador: El Libertador y Sucre en el Sur)[5]

My point of view is neutral. The chilean ship was defeated, although the Chilean historians are silent about the outcome of the battle. But Colombian historians say: until finally being defeated in Punta Galera ("hasta finalmente ser vencida en Punta Galera"). [6] p72 (La Revolución del 9 de Octubre y la importancia de Guayaquil en la Independencia de América). This blunt affirmation of the Colombian historians about the defeat of the Chilean ship is definitive, and it clears any doubt of the destruction of the Chilean ship, as Spanish historians say.

In summary: Neutral point of view is not the middline between Chileans and the rest of the world. All of the significant views are three: the Chilean historiography says nothing about the outcome of the battle, the Colombian and Spanish historians, both, says that the Chilean ship was defeated (and common sense too). About the name of the article : Chileans no give a name; Colombians say "Punta Galera", and Spaniard says "Punta Manglares", Turrado 1996 [7], Guillen 1953 [8]; or Destruction of the Chilean national corvette Rosa de los Andes. Vela 2017 [9]

(EDIT: I have moved the comment to the point of view of his author. It is not mine.) --Caminoderoma (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion by Dusti

....