This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The British are a main part of this history, these people and their symbols must to be in the Infobox military conflict, and Mutawallis II you can't erase them.-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
In the invasion of Normandy, all the indicated countries are belligerents. The British are mercenaries who serve Chile, as well as the other foreigners who were in the Chilean Navy. The only belligerents here are Chile and the Spanish Monarchy. The infofox does not respond under the logic of nationalities or ethnic groups, only belligerents. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The British are part of that war faction, not a separate entity, fought as mercenaries for Chile. therefore, the separation you intend is incongruent. Also keep in mind that the Chilean Navy was composed of Chileans, Americans and, to a lesser extent, other nationalities and ethnic groups. Not only British. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The only source where that is indicated is Pérez Turrado, and without basing his affirmation in anything. López Urrutia, based on the National Archive, points out that in this naval action there were Chileans. (Historia de la Marina de Chile, page 148) The British historian Brian Vale also points out the presence of Chileans. (Cochrane in the Pacific: Fortune and Freedom in Spanish America, page 113) -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 23:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: I invite both editors to read
MOS:FLAG which collects all guidelines on flag use. Flags primarily represent governments; the British government was not a party to this event. Flags should only be used to express the nationality of a person with a strong representation to the country associated with that flag in the context of the event (otherwise their use could be controversial or NPOV). I don't detect a strong representation here in the context of this event. The infobox doc does note smaller [groups] (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding
but that would be if there was something like a British marine detachment, not individual volunteers of British nationality. I feel that a British flag would actually lead to a misunderstanding that the British government was directly involved. In regard to the Invasion of Normandy article, its infobox has forces of governments-in-exile but nothing like foreign mercenaries. Additionally, like the lead, the infobox should summarize information established in the article body, and I found no mention of British mercenaries. If it isn't significant enough to be anywhere in the article, then the information hasn't demonstrated notability for inclusion in the infobox, let alone the strong connection required for representation with a flag icon in the infobox. As the article currently stands, my opinion is strongly against a British flag in the infobox. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the British in the Chilean Navy do not form divisions or groups, they are individually hooked and integrated in the same way as the Chileans and other foreigners present in it. That is what Caminoderoma can not or does not want to understand. Making a separation is incongruous, because they are all part of the same force that serves Chile. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 00:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of the officers were British, not all. The crew was not British, was heterogeneous as there were Chileans, British, Americans and to a lesser extent other nationalities or ethnicities. The use of the English language is for practical reasons, but none of that changes the fact that they served Chile. Cochrane and all the members of the Chilean Navy responded to Chile. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 00:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 00:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the name of Cubitt's book? -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Cubitt nowhere indicates the nationality of the 92 crew of the frigate O'Higgins. López Urrutia either. If you affirm that the 92 crew members were British and North American, what you do is interpret the information personally, since neither of the two authors expressly states that they were.
On the other hand, in Uribe's book, Chileans are mentioned in the crew of the frigate O'Higgins. Uribe cites the official part of Cochrane, where a list appears. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 17:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Please tell me in which part Cubbit indicates that the 92 crew members of the frigate O'Higgins were British or North American. Nowhere does he do it. In fact, it is limited to making the distinction between the crew of the Lautaro and Independencia, because Cubitt handles only that reference ("List of Lautaro and Independencia boarding parties" at the end of the page, does not mention the "list of O'Higgins").
Uribe, in a list of some officers given by Cochrane himself, mentions Chileans in the crew of the O'Higgins. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 17:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Of the Lautaro and the Independencia it does it, because the historian has the "List of Lautaro and Independencia boarding parties", that appears in the references it places at the end of the page. Regarding the O'Higgins it says absolutely nothing, except the number of crew. He never points out that there were no Chileans, besides Uribe's reference indicates the presence of Chileans in O'Higgins. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 17:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The British are a main part of this history, these people and their symbols must to be in the Infobox military conflict, and Mutawallis II you can't erase them.-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 17:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
In the invasion of Normandy, all the indicated countries are belligerents. The British are mercenaries who serve Chile, as well as the other foreigners who were in the Chilean Navy. The only belligerents here are Chile and the Spanish Monarchy. The infofox does not respond under the logic of nationalities or ethnic groups, only belligerents. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 18:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The British are part of that war faction, not a separate entity, fought as mercenaries for Chile. therefore, the separation you intend is incongruent. Also keep in mind that the Chilean Navy was composed of Chileans, Americans and, to a lesser extent, other nationalities and ethnic groups. Not only British. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 19:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The only source where that is indicated is Pérez Turrado, and without basing his affirmation in anything. López Urrutia, based on the National Archive, points out that in this naval action there were Chileans. (Historia de la Marina de Chile, page 148) The British historian Brian Vale also points out the presence of Chileans. (Cochrane in the Pacific: Fortune and Freedom in Spanish America, page 113) -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 23:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: I invite both editors to read
MOS:FLAG which collects all guidelines on flag use. Flags primarily represent governments; the British government was not a party to this event. Flags should only be used to express the nationality of a person with a strong representation to the country associated with that flag in the context of the event (otherwise their use could be controversial or NPOV). I don't detect a strong representation here in the context of this event. The infobox doc does note smaller [groups] (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding
but that would be if there was something like a British marine detachment, not individual volunteers of British nationality. I feel that a British flag would actually lead to a misunderstanding that the British government was directly involved. In regard to the Invasion of Normandy article, its infobox has forces of governments-in-exile but nothing like foreign mercenaries. Additionally, like the lead, the infobox should summarize information established in the article body, and I found no mention of British mercenaries. If it isn't significant enough to be anywhere in the article, then the information hasn't demonstrated notability for inclusion in the infobox, let alone the strong connection required for representation with a flag icon in the infobox. As the article currently stands, my opinion is strongly against a British flag in the infobox. –
Reidgreg (
talk)
23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the British in the Chilean Navy do not form divisions or groups, they are individually hooked and integrated in the same way as the Chileans and other foreigners present in it. That is what Caminoderoma can not or does not want to understand. Making a separation is incongruous, because they are all part of the same force that serves Chile. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 00:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 00:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Most of the officers were British, not all. The crew was not British, was heterogeneous as there were Chileans, British, Americans and to a lesser extent other nationalities or ethnicities. The use of the English language is for practical reasons, but none of that changes the fact that they served Chile. Cochrane and all the members of the Chilean Navy responded to Chile. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 00:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
-- Caminoderoma ( talk) 00:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the name of Cubitt's book? -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 01:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Cubitt nowhere indicates the nationality of the 92 crew of the frigate O'Higgins. López Urrutia either. If you affirm that the 92 crew members were British and North American, what you do is interpret the information personally, since neither of the two authors expressly states that they were.
On the other hand, in Uribe's book, Chileans are mentioned in the crew of the frigate O'Higgins. Uribe cites the official part of Cochrane, where a list appears. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 17:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Please tell me in which part Cubbit indicates that the 92 crew members of the frigate O'Higgins were British or North American. Nowhere does he do it. In fact, it is limited to making the distinction between the crew of the Lautaro and Independencia, because Cubitt handles only that reference ("List of Lautaro and Independencia boarding parties" at the end of the page, does not mention the "list of O'Higgins").
Uribe, in a list of some officers given by Cochrane himself, mentions Chileans in the crew of the O'Higgins. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 17:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Of the Lautaro and the Independencia it does it, because the historian has the "List of Lautaro and Independencia boarding parties", that appears in the references it places at the end of the page. Regarding the O'Higgins it says absolutely nothing, except the number of crew. He never points out that there were no Chileans, besides Uribe's reference indicates the presence of Chileans in O'Higgins. -- Muwatallis II ( talk) 17:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)