Talk:Quintín Quintana

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Chinese ex-slave named Quintín Quintana became a successful merchant and pro-Chile leader in the War of the Pacific? Source: Tinsman, Heidi (1 August 2018). "Rebel Coolies, Citizen Warriors, and Sworn Brothers: The Chinese Loyalty Oath and Alliance with Chile in the War of the Pacific". Hispanic American Historical Review. 98 (3). Duke University Press: 439–69.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WaHu Student Apartments

Created by Vami IV (talk), Roniius (talk), and 2x2leax (talk). Nominated by Vami IV (talk) at 11:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC).

• Beginning review DrThneed (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: DrThneed (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Article moved into mainspace 31 July, so is long enough and new enough. Earwig score of 20% is due to use of "the War of Pacific" and an article title, so not of concern. The source describes Quintana as a "well-heeled Chinese merchant" who had previously arrived in Peru as a coolie. It also says "Quintı´n Quintana assumed leadership of a Chinese sworn brotherhood and functioned as an enganche boss to the Chilean army" in 1881, which is during the War of the Pacific, so I think covers the second part of the hook. Just one comment, you might consider using "enslaved people" rather than "slaves" in the article. DrThneed (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

An indentured servant, or even a peon…

…is not a slave, however attractive conflating them may be in wartime propaganda…or the “did you know” column, where truth is also often the first casualty. Qwirkle (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes, an indentured servant is a slave. The entire Texas Revolution was about slavery and the white Southern USA immigrants who brought hundreds of their slaves with them. The Mexican government pushed back, and Stephen F. Austin negotiated by trying to have the slaves reclassified as "indentured servants". But they would be "indentured" and unpaid for life. It was the exact same institution - slavery. — Maile (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

As the subject’s personal history makes clear, this is not always the case, and was not here. The overwhelming bulk of indentured servants were just that. Qwirkle (talk)

Enslavement of Black people in Peru was outlawed in 1854. To make up the difference, the Peruvian planter class and mine owners began importing kidnapped Chinese men to work exactly the same jobs and conditions Black Peruvians had before 1854. The addition of contracts is window dressing, especially when anyone who got to the end of their contract usually entered a newer albeit shorter one. There were several violent rebellions by Chinese slaves before the War of the Pacific. See pages 449–40 and 456–57 of Tinsman 2018. Thus in effect what Maile said is correct: that the Chinese coolies were not slaves is hot air and is what the Peruvian planters wanted you to think. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

…or what Chileans want you to think, yes. That doesn’t change the fact that this particular fellow left indentured status, as did considerable others, and that there are gradations between indenture, peonage, and slavery. Qwirkle (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Qwirkle, there's a more-effective place to express these kinds of concerns at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It’d be nice if that were so, but it is not. Discussing anything but a blatant factual mistake has little effect there beyond the same coterie that put it up in the first place explaining at tiresome length why they put it up in the first place, followed by a rapid archiving. Like bad doctors, the main page talk buries its mistakes. Qwirkle (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

So he became an ex-slave, or ex-slave-with-caveat. Do you have a proposal? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

An honest hook might be “rose from a indentured servitude system that bordered, in effect, with peonage and slavery.” Qwirkle (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinese name

What would his correct Chinese name be? Liu Tang Sin Shin / Leotàn Sin-Shin suggests 劉唐单舜 (simp. 刘唐单舜, Liú tángdānshùn) or something like that, I can't find it in any Chinese source. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Even the folks at zh.wiki don't seem to know yet [1] Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We did a (brief) look for Chinese sources for his name, but unfortunately likewise couldn't find anything. Would be fantastic to have the characters for his name. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

POV

Unsurprisingly, the history of this time looks slightly different from the Chilean side to the Peruvian. This article does not appear to even acknowledge this, much less give a synopsis of each view. Qwirkle (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Multi stage migrant

I would upmeege to the three leg cats, but will hold off until the nomination is resolved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)