Talk:Huáscar (ironclad)

Language: "were killed" vs. "died"

I see that a recent edit changes "were killed" to "died", possibly by a Spanish speaker, allegedly because the former somehow suggests killed afterwards (one possible literal translation to Spanish: "los mataron" could be taken to mean "murdered" or "executed"). The reason behind the change is understandable as it is aiming for NPOV: crew indeed died during, and as a result of the battle.

Note, however, that English "were killed" is not used the same way as Spanish "los mataron" but rather "fueron muertos". The normal use does not necessarily convey the same negative meanings as in Spanish, and is widely used I.e. "Killed in action" (KIA - muerto en acción); "killed by a forest fire" (murieron en un incendio); "were killed during the battle" (murieron en batalla). Thus, Prat was killed after boarding, Grau was killed during the battle, Thomson was killed during the bombardment of Arica. Just noting this, as you may find the phrase elsewhere within the article ("Thomson was killed" is) or elsewhere. Be assured, this is still NPOV.

- Cheers, TopQuark 18:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree --GringoInChile 15:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured article?

This article has been developing quite nicely in the last few months. With a little bit more work, I think it could be ready to be nominated as a featured article. What do others think? Anyone else interested in this project? --GringoInChile 15:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• That would be a nice development. I do think that the article is not ready for prime time and needs that extra "oomph". Some things to address:

• Design and technology considerations - who designed it, how and why?
• History: what did Huáscar accomplish after the War of the Pacific?
• Citations, citations, citations.

Cheers, TopQuark 10:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I believe that an extensive research about its involvement in the Chilean Civil War would be a great contribution to the page.

Cheers, Messhermit 03:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Significance

While I don't, in any way, dispute the significance of the ship, the following phrase:

"Although often overlooked by Euro-centric historians, objective evaluation reveals Huáscar to be one of the most significant historic warships afloat. Few museum ships approach the Huáscar's combination of technological significance, combat record, folklore references, or length of active service.".

Does not seem very NPOV. The Huáscar stands on her own merits. I would argue for the paragraph's elimination, but solicit your comments first. Seaphoto 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may not be NPOV, but the paragraph points out a reality: Monitor-era Battleships are totally ignored. Messhermit 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

In recent years, I would argue just the opposite - there have been a steady increase in the number of available books on the era, and if you want to use the availability of model kits as an indicator, there has never before been such a variety of pre-dreadnought amd earlier subjects. But I was mostly objecting to the Euro-centric comment - a statement like that needs some documentation behind it. Seaphoto 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I didn't write that paragraph, I assume that whoever writted must mean that, compare with the USS Constitution and the HMS Victory, It does not recieve the attention that it deserves. Messhermit 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should stay, as it is NPOV and illustrates a good point about certain trends in historiography (although, nowadays those trends are not as dominant as in the past) With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think its time to revive this issue, as the section is riddled with POV, weasel words and peacock terms, and desperately needs sourcing or removing. 'often overlooked by maritime historians, an objective evaluation shows Huáscar to be one of the most significant historic warships afloat in the world' - in whose opinion is the ship overlooked, who has made this objective evaluation, just how objective is it? 'arguably the least well-represented historical category of ships in the global museum fleet' - who is arguing this? 'most glorious warships' is hardly objective, encyclopaedic language. We may well personally think that the Huascar is shamefully neglected in current historiography, but we are not entitled to set out our own views on what we believe is a reality. Let the article prove the Husacar's merits, rather than this sort of peacockery. Benea (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Huáscar article should be compared to other articles - compare, for example, the Dreadnought or the Devastation. The Huáscar was 40 years ahead of the one, and 5 years ahead of the other, yet both are described in terms that are 'revolutionary'; Devastation is claimed to be the most powerful warship afloat for 15 years; Dreadnought a battleship that revolutionised naval power. While Huáscar may not have been recognised as such, the use of steam as a main propulsion, the hull built of steel, and the concentration on an all big-gun armament was far more revolutionary than any other blue-water battleship in history; and worth far more than the throwaway comment "a small ship similar to a monitor".

Huáscar's battle experience, and the fact (not POV) that her existence dominated military strategy on the south-west coast of south America, proved the point. The development of monitors based on the Coles turret was driven by Coles himself and Ericsson in Sweden and the US; and these were revolutionary developments. But the Huáscar remains the first ship that could be considered a ship of the line to incorporate these technical advancements. Friendlyyours137 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake

What happend to the Huáscar when the tsunami hit Talcahuano? 85.178.249.140 (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The Huscar is fine. There was a bit of a scare that she was lost because initial reports were that she couldn't be seen from the shore, but in fact all that had happened was that 5 of 6 moorings were broken which changed the direction in which she was pointing making her harder to see. GringoInChile (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, am I happy to see Huáscar made it, this will only add to the legend. Happy to see you made it as well, GringoInChile. TopQuark (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone update whether the ship can be visited today? Article states that visits stopped after the quake in 2010 - is this still the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered my own question - the ship is back open to visitors. Their website says this happened in March 2011. I just emailed them and got the response that they're open every day except Mondays (and a couple holidays each year). Updated the article (feel free to check their website if you don't believe me and add the reference). Will see for myself later this month! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.11 (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, she's alive and well - as noted above, I did see for myself in May of this year. I happened to visit when the highway to the base was closed due to some sort of race, but the police gave me a motorcycle escort to the gate so arrived with some pomp. Huascar is in excellent condition and well worth the visit if you happen to be down that way.

Name of the article

A user has moved the article "Huáscar (ship)" to "Peruvian ironclad Huáscar" ([1]) with the edit summary: Proper nomenclature.

This article is about a ship built in England and that now is a Museum ship in Chile. Nobody refuse that the ship is a Chilean object. On the other hand, the ship was for (few) years a Peruvian ship until the Battle of Angamos.

I think the article should be called neither Peruvian nor Chilean nor should we separate the article as occurred with ARA Belgrano and USS Phoenix (CL-46). The Huascar ship is very old and well mantained and merits in itself an article as Museum ship. But one of the main aspects of the history is the calamitous circumstances of the changeover: The War of the Pacific that unites and divides both nations.

If no one rebuke, I will move the article name back to "Huáscar (ship)" or better "Huáscar (Ironclad)" --Keysanger 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your two proposals conform to the proper form of the name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). I chose to use Peruvian rather than Chilean because the ship was built for, and initially served in the Peruvian Navy, but we can discuss which one is preferable based on precedents used in other captured ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you insist to use the nacionality of the ship, then, there are no alternatives, we have to use Chilean Ironclad Huáscar because the ship is a Chilean object.

To convince the reader that the Huáscar is a Peruvian ship would be like to demostrate that New York is a city of the United Kingdom because was built for, and initially served in the UK. Best regards, --Keysanger 10:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A fair point, but hardly conclusive. What are the names used by other articles for ships captured and put into service by their new owners?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the some of the WP articles bear the name of the (new) owner country or the Abbreviation for the (new) navy in her names or only the name of the ship, if they were used as ships:

• USCGC Eagle (WIX-327)
• Gorch Fock (1933) re- and backnamed
• Japanese battleship Iwami
• HMS Graph (P715)
• French submarine Laubie (S610)
• Roland Morillot (S613)
• HMS Little Belt (1807)
• HMS Brev Drageren (1807)

Other captured ships kept her name as some german U-Boots mostly because they were never comissioned to the new navies. This is the logical consequence of the War loot and Prize (law).

So as the name of the ship is without controversy, Huáscar, and if any adjetive is used then the nacionality of the owner of the ship, there are no reason for the new name given to the article. --Keysanger 20:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a special case since the ship was not renamed when commissioned as a Chilean vessel. I agree that given the history of rancor and acrimony to this day among the participants in the War of the Pacific, a "neutral" article title would be appropriate, even if this is an exception to the WP conventional ship article naming scheme. In this case, a non-neutral title could be inferred (by various parties) to represent a non-neutral point of view, and since that is a foundational element of wikipedia it should take precedence over a subsidiary and thus lower ranked article naming policy. The only way to satisfy both requirements would be to split the article in twain by its timeline, or title it Peruvian/Chilean..., neither of which is very neat. How about two redirects using the nationality in the title?Leonard G. (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A neutral name with two redirects may well work to defuse the nationality issue, which is likely something people feel strongly about. I'll post a note about this on the WP:SHIPS talk page to invite other comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think splitting the article would be the best solution. The ship had an active service career under both navies (and seemingly well-documented—something relatively unique for ships of the era), so I don't think you'd end up with a pair of stubs. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we just move it back to Huascar (ship), please? It's happily been there for years and that's where all the links go. There is no point trying to say it's "Chilean" or "Peruvian", it served in both navies. Splitting the article would be a very bad idea as a) it's one ship, not two and b) we'd have to go back through every inbound link working out which period of time it refers to, probably we would find that some articles talk about it in both. The Land (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Huáscar (ship) (or ironclad, warship, etc) seems the best approach. I'm not sure splitting is the best idea; it's usually a compromise when we have different names for things, but we don't have that problem here. There's also the problem that the article not only deals with the "Peruvian warship" and "Chilean warship" incarnations, but also the "museum ship" aspect, which is linked in to both. Shimgray | talk | 22:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am against two articles. It would be a bad precedent for other conflicts in WP and all the more, it is until now a non-conflictive issue. I insist, let's rename Huáscar (Ironclad) . --Keysanger 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but suggest that redirects from each "Huáscar ... (country name)" and also "Huáscar ... (museum ship)", with appropriate article redirect in bold hat notes: "..., ..., and ... redirect here", and that the article include either a hat note or lead paragraph that clarifies the situation - such as "Huáscar was an ironclad warship that served and fought in the navies of both Peru and Chile and is preserved as a museum ship at ...". That should nail it down for every one. -- Leonard G. (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

done --Keysanger 19:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exploits of the Huascar

Without any doubt Miguel Grau did a great work as he contained the Chilean fleet for 137 days and that must be exposed to the reader. Nevertheless, Wikipedia must deliver a neutral view of the facts and avoid any apotheosis of one side. In my opinion, the current version of the exploits didn't success in overcoming the dificulties.

There are at least two broken WP rules.

First the WP:Due: the little victories of the Huascar are exposed in the most exhaustive length but without references and without context. For example "She sank 16 Chilean vessels including ships and boats". Oh! sixteen sounds very well, but how many boats were under the 16?. The sentence hides that under the 16 could have been 15 boats!. Other Example "Damaged ports of Cobija, Tocopilla, Patillos and Mejillones, Huanillos, Punta de Lobo, Chañaral, Huasco, Caldera, Coquimbo and Taltal". It sounds great!, but what do they mean with "Huanillos"? How many thousand inhabitants had Huanillo?, which was the military, economic or political importance of Huanillo and the others?. The third example is shameful: "Damaged the Chilean ships Blanco Encalada, Abtao, Magallanes and Matías Cousiño". The Blanco Encalada captured the Huascar. The writer scorns the reader.

The second rule is Balance: Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. The text regarding the exploits ("Huáscar went on with her mission and in ... Chilean Navy replaced its own chief of staff.") contains 147 words and 1020 characters. In contrast, the text regarding the capture of the Huascar ("On 8 October 1879, Huáscar was captured by the Chilean Navy at the Battle of Angamos, during which most of Huáscar's crew were killed, including Rear Admiral Grau.") contains 28 words and 166 characters. The article suggests that the exploits of the Huascar were more important than the destruction of the Peruvian Navy.

In my opinion, it is urgently to improve this part of the article. It must be said that the importance of the Huascar was to contain the enemy for 137 days and not to destroy the "port" of Huanillo or to sink fishing boats. And a little bit more about the capture of the Huascar. --Keysanger 15:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Proper name for the War of the Pacific

An IP editor insists on using War of the Nitrate for the War of the Pacific, although I had never heard this name before in all my reading about the war. This may be a literal translation of the Spanish name for this war, not that I know one way or another, but it's certainly not the most common name for the war, which policy says that we should use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The war between Chile and Peru and Bolivia had a leitmotiv: the nitrate (guano y salitre in spanish). Jacinto Lopez Venezuelan historian names this war: Nitrate War (Guerra del guano y del salitre in spanish). The name War of Pacific is related to the war between USA and Japan in the WWII.

The Pacific War is used for that part of World War II, but the Chilean/Bolivian/Peruvian war is known as the War of the Pacific in English. War of the Nitrate is accurate as to what the war was fought over, but is virtually unknown in English. What do other Spanish historians call it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Nitrate War is called by a historical mistake War of the Pacific. Chileans calls the Nitrate War as Pacific War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.64.192.239 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Huáscar (ironclad). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121101092110/http://www.worldshiptrust.org/awards.html to http://www.worldshiptrust.org/awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Huáscar a battleship?

Well is she? The body text doesn't say so, but I only care if she should or shouldn't appear in Category:Existing battleships.

She was an armored steam-driven capital ship with 10" guns in a turrent... Only one turret and two guns, but still... (10" doesn't sound so big, but things were smaller then: HMS Dreadnought only had 12" guns). Sounds like a battleship to me. Alright who care what I think, but let's see... googling on "battleship Huáscar" gives...

• This tourist website calls it the "Battleship Huáscar museum"... let's see... [shuffle shuffle]...
• History Today (whoever they are) titles its article "Huascar: Hijacked Battleship"
• Here is another tourist site that says ""battleship Huáscar" but just in passing...
• Stock image sites -- Getty, Alamy, Agefotostock -- have lots of pics labeled as being about the battleship Huáscar... this Ebay listing calls it an "Ironclad Turret Battleship".
• Ohhh, Here is the Oxford African American Studies Center (sounds like bigdomes!) with "battleship Huáscar" in an abstract for a scholarly article.
• Here, the Naval Encyclopedia (whoever they are, but looks like a legit serious website) says "battleship Huáscar".
• This 1906 magazine article calls it a battleship.

And there's more, but I stopped there. That's good enough for me. It's at least arguably a battleship, according to sources. If you want to argue that it's not a real battleship, don't take it up with me. Write to the sources and get them to change first.

(It is true that the official site for the museum does NOT say "battleship", at least on the home page (it doesn't say anything else either, like "ironclad, just describes it as a "floating historical relic"), and other sources also say "ironclad" or "monitor" or just "ship. So but I'm just saying its arguable.

Category:Existing battleships is kind of small and American-WWII-centric, so I can't see the harm in restoring it to the category, and did. Herostratus (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, she's a monitor. The sources that you've quoted aren't knowledgeable enough to be worthwhile, similarly to how popular media outlets call everything with tracks a tank when they're actually armored personnel carriers, engineer vehicles, etc. The specialist literature generally calls her a monitor, with some usage of turret ship. Just like the Schorpioen-class monitor of a similar vintage.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mnmh, that's reasonable. Although the Huáscar is ocean-going and most monitors aren't, being mostly for coastal defense I think. But that's not absolutely required for the class I don't think.

I dunno. There's tension between "correct" and "popular" use for a lot of things, at the margins. Bob Semple tank is not a tank -- tanks have turrets, with the singe exception of the Swedish S-tank, and the Bob Semple doesn't. It's an AFV, armored fighting vehicle. However, everyone calls it a tank, the article title is "tank", and my attempts to change the type in the infobox to "AFV" or to include "Athough called a tank, it is actually..." in the text have not met with success, so I stopped. Enh. If enough people think its a tank, then tank it is I guess -- or at any rate that is one way to describe it.

I did check Google NGRAM and "monitor Huáscar" is a lot more used than "battleship Huáscar", though. Hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)