Talk:Chincha Islands War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectives of the war[edit]

That "Scientific Expedition" was not a "try to recover their lost posesions". Spain had recognized Chilean independence years before that. And how they were going to reconquist Peru & Chile with a fleet? Climbing their ships inside land? This article is quite NNPOV --80.103.138.14 02:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disagrees with your facts. The article clearly states that the point of the expedition was "to try to reasert Spain's influence" in the area not to try to recapture its former colonies. Also, it's true that Spain had recognized Chilean independence in 1842, but it had never recognized Peru's independence, and this was one of the points of contention that gave rise to the diplomatic incident: sending a Royal Commisary (as for a colony) instead of a diplomatic representative, because Spain wanted to avoid an "implicit" recognition of Peruvian independence. Mel Romero 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of article[edit]

The end of this article is inconclusive in regard to the resolution of the war. --Cjs56 17:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The conclusion has never been written. You are welcome to try your hand at it if you have the time. The negotiations between Spain and Chile ended in 1882, and with Peru much later, but I don't have the full information yet. Mel Romero 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spain fourth naval power?[edit]

in the 1860's , Spain was the 3RD naval power , only years later , would USA take its place and become 3rd and Spain subsquently take 4th, so can i change it?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revolving Cannon[edit]

In the order of battle section the term "revolving cannon" is confusing. The use of "revolving" appears in the 1880s for certain types of small caliber, rapid fire guns carried largely for anti-torpedo boat defense. In English I believe the more correct term would be "pivot gun" as that was univerally used in the period to describe large caliber guns that could be pivoted on a single mounting to fire either to port and starboard or over a wider arc as a chase or stern gun. --Walterggreen3 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Map of South America with the allied countries in colours, red dots are battles in chronological order as follow: A-Chincha Islands, 1-Papudo, 2-Valparaiso, 3-Abtao and 4-Callao

One user has removed this map several times due to some aledged innaccuracies in the Ecuador-Peru border. Any way, this innacuracies are relatively small and are not the focus of what is eíntered to be shown with the map. The map was made to show the locations of battles in the Chincha Islands War not to give the Peruvian version (or the Ecuadorian) of the Peru-Ecuador border. In fact Ecuador is almost irrelevant as it the country did never engage in actions against Spain.Dentren | Talk 20:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who remove the map in this article, and the errors are not irrelevant, the map must be accurated in all its components to be useful as a source of information in Wikipedia. And is not the "Peruvian version" of the boundaries between Peru and Ecuador, it is the only and correct version. At least you can show any source to sustain than this map is correct in all its contain. Please correct the inaccuracies and just then insert the map in the article again. Greetings--Cloudaoc (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, again: Please fix the map, the information showed is incorrect, that areas was not in dispute in that time, they always were Peruvian territory, the map must be accurated to be useful here in Wikipedia. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at left. The map have been updated to include the important region of tumbes as under Peruvian control. I dont see any reason to not have it the article now.Dentren | Talk 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dentren, Jaen and Maynas are still painted in two colors, and they are also Peruvian... Look, I'll remove again the map, because is STILL incorrect, in fact, the northeast section of the map is geographically incorrect, because its like today, not like 1866. Sorry, you must be accurated, please correct the errors and just then insert the map again. Greetings.
Hello mr. constructive maybe you want to do a Peruvian a map?

Numbers[edit]

Strength of beligerents? Men, ships, artillery? Casualties? If anyone knows or has access to this information, I think it would be very benificial to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.91.170 (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article[edit]

The current name of the article (Chincha Islands War) is misleading and absolutely uncommon. In Chile and in Perú it is called "Guerra contra España" ("War against Spain"), and in Spain they call it "Guerra del Pacífico" ("War of the Pacific"). I understand none of those names seems available, unless the years are added between parenthesis. But "Chincha Islands War" is completely misleading, because it refers to one stage of the war as if it were the whole thing. Chapters of this story were written in Valparaiso, and the coasts of Peru. In German and in Spanish they have solved the issue by calling it "Hispanic-South American War", and using the other names in the first paragraph of the article.

--Universal001 (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggest Universal. The first time I read this article, I was also surprised by the name. I arrived at this article through the Battle of Callao (combate del dos de mayo) article. However, the name "Chincha Islands War" is standard in English history to depict this war between Peru, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador and Spain.
Per the policy of WP:COMMONNAME, we have to abide by the common name used in English history.
I hope this sufficiently addresses your concern.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is denoted by various names in English references, and it is wrong to claim that a "common" name exists. It is often not even designated as a "war", much less given a name. In documents from that time onward, it was called the "Hispano-Peruvian matter", "Spanish intervention" or "Spanish-Chilean conflict". These incidents of Spanish intervention are "sometimes referred to as the First War of the Pacific, although it has no commonly accepted name" (see, F. Taylor Peck in Latin American Diplomatic History: An Introduction, 1977, p. 121). Several historians simply view it as a lead-up to the larger Second "War of the Pacific" of 1879–1883. • Astynax talk 19:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the information, Astynax. It would be a great addition for an "etymology" section for this article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

An interesting question to respond about this article is why the images are located in places outside the area they should be at. For example, the Chincha Islands guano image and the occupation image are all way below the sections they should be located at. Any ideas?--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loa built 1854 or 1864?[edit]

"Ironclad monitors - Loa – Built 1854" The first Monitor was built in 1861. Maybe the Loa was built in 1864?--TDKehoe (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a conversion, using the hull of an existing ship. The conversion was ordered in 1864. I'll clarify. • Astynax talk 18:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Chincha Islands War. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talambó or Talambo?[edit]

In spanish Wikipedia es:Incidente de Talambo it is “Talambo”. — Wassermaus (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chincha_Islands_War&oldid=1206662425"