Talk:Huáscar (ship)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-