Talk:Hippolyte Bouchard

Copyright notice

 * The article's present text, taken directly from, gives permission in its copyright notice that:


 * "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Does this imply the article as it stands, cannot be revised or incorporated into a more detailed article ? MadMax 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think an article can be described as a "license document", and that is an exact quote of the beggining of the GFDL license text. --Argentino (talk/cont.) 14:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Pirate
I have NEVER in my life someone calling Bouchard a pirate. As you can see here in a note at the end, the author excused himself for callin him pirate in an older version and reffered a letter from an argentine history professor "Captain Bouchard was a corsair from the then very young free state of the "United Provinces of Rio de la Plata River," (direct ancestor of the present Argentine Republic). He was encharted from the government to have a legal "corsair license" against any property of the Spanish Empire all over the world. As you may see reading a very interesting book about those Bouchard's trips "El Corsario del Plata" by Daniel E. Cichero, Bouchard marked with a red cross each door of an American's house to be avoided during any confiscation, protecting in that way interests of Americans. So, he attacked and confiscated only properties of Spanish administration, an enemy in those times. Then, as you may know, both countries were involved in a (very cruel) independence war."

But maybe he war wrong, then we see here, that he is said to be corsair by an article of the oldest and most readed newspaper in Argentina.

But, nah, they are all wrong, or lying, it cant be true, only a filthy pirate can conquer in 16 hours what USA couldn't for years. But then we have this page, part of the official web of the Argentine Marine (it is probably right). It is the biography of one of Bouchard's assistants, Tomás Espora, who became General Commander of the Marine and there Bouchard is also titled "corsair". If anyone has a more reputable and important source that says that Bouchard was a pirate then may Cite sources -Argentino 18:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

PD: Wikipedia's frist line of the article "pirate": A pirate is one who robs, pillages, or plunders at sea, or sometimes the shore, without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation.

Argentina declared independence 2 years before. Bouchard managed to make recognise Argentina as a sovereign nation to King Karakakowa from Hawaii, the fact that he almost conquered the islands do it does not care, does it?Argentino 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And more, in the same article, there IS a difference between pirate and corsair: "A privateer or corsair used similar methods to a pirate, but acted while in possession of a commission or letter of marque from a government or king authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation."

He only attacked spanishs Argentino 18:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A matter of perspective?
Perhaps the WP article Privateer says it best:

"''To the target country, a privateer looked very much like a pirate, and indeed this was the intention. The only difference was that pirates were considered outlaws by all nations, while privateers had immunity from the country that commissioned them. Privateers were sometimes known as 'gentleman pirates'."

Hippolyte de Bouchard examines both of these perspectives. There are many sources that describe Bouchard and his forces as pirates (virtually all taking the Spanish point of view), some even questioning his true motives, not the least of which include:

,, and the latter of which states:

"''In 1818, the mission was visited by California's only pirate, Bouchard. Equipped with two sailing ships, he attacked missions on the coast in the name of a South American province which was engaged in revolt against Spain. His connection with the revolutionists was more fiction than fact, but he found it provided a convenient excuse for his attack on the settlements."

Also :

"''In 1818, the pirate Bouchard attacked the California coast, supposedly in the name of a South American province that was rebelling against Spain. In truth, he used the revolution as an excuse to attack the California settlements."



"''Hipolito Bouchard, a pirate from Argentina, found the cove at Dana Point a safe fefuge [ sic ] . In 1818, he docked his pirate fleet in the cove while his sailors were raiding and setting fire to parts of nearby Mission San Juan Capistrano."

and finally :

"''…the pirate Hippolyte de Bouchard. (A French citizen, Bouchard was technically sailing under letters of marque from the insurgent government of Argentina and was thus legally attacking its enemy, the Spanish empire). Nevertheless, to the citizens of this poor but loyal province, he was a pirate and remains so to this day in story and song and in the large painting near the Law Library in the Santa Barbara County Courthouse corridor."

--Lordkinbote 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first page didn't call Bouchard "pirate" directly, and the others werent written by any kind of historian, so, unless they were written by an illuminated soul, they are probably wrong. (They arent even official pages, or pages of any important association/organisation.) Argentino 18:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And your last link says "Nevertheless, to the citizens of this poor but loyal province, he was a pirate" (just a point of view!) Argentino 18:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We're going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Even the article you cite from La Nación alludes to the fact that "...in the zones bordering Monterey he [Bouchard] is seen like a pirate...", which is what the main article here states. And I regard the California Mission Studies Association (here's yet another reference, written by Dr. Sasha Honig, Professor Emeritus of History at Bakersfield College and Mission San Juan Capistrano as "important" organizations in this context.--Lordkinbote 20:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is OK, but tell me, in your opinion, considering that a pirate is "One who robs, pillages, or plunders at sea, or sometimes the shore, without a commission from a recognized sovereign nation", is it fair to call Bouchard a pirate? Argentino 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the issue here is not regarding what is fair or unfair, it has to do with historical accuracy and NPOV. As some of the cited text illustrates, there exist at least a few opinions that some of Bouchard's actions may not have been consistent with the authority granted him by the Argentinian government. In the end, regardless of his true motives, he was "...most often regarded as a pirate" (by his adversaries, at any rate &mdash; he is frequently referred to as "California's only pirate") and that is as much a part of his legacy as his perceived good deeds are.--Lordkinbote 00:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seemed logical to me that, if a pirate is someone that is not fighting for a determinated state, and Bochard was fighting for one, then he was not a pirate, but OK. Argentino 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

POV
The statement "...though among the Spanish settlements in California he was regarded as a pirate has been removed in one form or another three times from the article, twice with no explanation and the last time with the edit summary "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." This is a misinterpretation of NPOV policy: that the residents of California saw Bouchard as a pirate is well documented, and is an issue that has been previously discussed herein at some length. The removal of this fact by one user, for apparantly personal reasons, IS POV based on the above definition. If I have to open an RFC on this point I will to keep this from becoming an edit war. I suggest that you move on, Argentino.--Lord Kinbote 06:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Spanish settlements in California during the XIX Century are not a "big minority"; there isn't an article about Spanish settlements in California, therefore the inhabitant's oppinion (aka. Point of View) is vastly limited and does not belong to Wikipedia. Nobody has ever said there was a problem with the documentation but that is not the point. Read the whole sentence!:


 * "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. — WP:NPOV


 * So please don't add it anymore —Argentino (talk/cont.) 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're still not interpreting the policy correctly; POV has to do with articles and editors, NOT with academic sources cited in articles. Just because someone in Argentina refuses to acknowledge that Bouchard attained a reputation in Caifornia as a pirate does not invalidate that fact, nor trivialize it. To the Argentinians he's considered a hero; to the Spaniards, he was a marauder. As per WP:CITE:


 * "Many subject matters will have a major prevailing view by academic scholars and a minority view. Others will have various viewpoints depending on which scholar or writer you speak with. Attempt to cite sources from different viewpoints as to present a fair and balanced view of what the academic community believes to be true. Annotation reporting the POV of a particular source will help our users."


 * I'm not convinced that the pirate angle is a minority view. The article itself is rife with references to works that refer to Bouchard as a pirate. This point was thoroughly debated 10 months ago and should not have been resurrected unilaterally. As I stated above, if you wish to persist in this I'm more than happy to open an RFC to settle the issue once and for all.--Lord Kinbote 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I trust WP:NPOV —Argentino (talk/cont.) 15:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are way off on this, Argentino. Lord Kinbote's arguments meet all of the requirements of WP:V; yours do not. The information should properly be included in the article to ensure a balanced (i.e. neutral) viewpoint, and your continued removal of the same borders on WP:POINT at the very least. I'll be happy to oppose you in an RFA should one be needed on that basis. I'd suggest that you devote your energy to providing source information for the remainder of the article, which it is sorely lacking. Regards, Mdhennessey 18:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Very impressive... an account with less than 50 edits has a way-avobe average knowledge of the wikipedia policy. However the matter is not the verifiability of User:Lordkinbote's edits, the matter is that there are extremely few people who beelive that Bouchard was a pirate, and because of WP:NPOV that oppinions should not be placed in the article. If he had tried to put that point of view in the part of the article about the conquest of California I wouldn't have complained but he put it in the opening section, and that is too much. And nobody beelives he was an actual pirate. In 1918 he was accused of piracy and since he was named Admiral in Chief of the Peruvian Navy I assume he was not hanged. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 02:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and you lack a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy. It may interest you to know that while looking for sources on the material you have added recently I consulted the Spanish Wikipedia (which is a Featured Article) and found the following passage referring to Bouchard and his crew, right in the introductory paragraph (loosely translated into English via Babelfish): "Their actions, in particular the ones in California and Central America, have not deserved a unanimous judgment. For the Argentine historians their facts constitute remarkable heroic acts within Argentine naval history; for others, Bouchard, due to his excesses, was simply a cruel pirate." Guess those folks got it wrong, too. Mdhennessey 05:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, they haven't. I have never denied that someone said he was a pirate. However, in the Spanish version that is the only place where the Spanish's view is expressed because the article has never been discussed in the talk and because the Spanish wikipedia is not the English one and has different guidelines and policy. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 12:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

 * Talk:Hippolyte de Bouchard: An edit war in the making; User:Argentino insists on removing well-sourced material because the entries do not conform to his particular POV on the subject, which flies in the face of WP:CITE and WP:V, among other things. The specific issue, that "...among the Spanish settlements in California he [Bouchard] was regarded as a pirate..." has been discussed at length going as far back as December 2005, and is also acknowledged in the Spanish WP featured article, which this article has by-and-large been copied and translated from by Argentino. 05:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please post opinions regarding the discussions listed in the three (3) previous sections as outlined in Requests for comment/Biographies (and reiterated immediately above):


 * This is a false accusation. I have said a LOT of times it was not because of inacurated sources (but Lordkinbote just ignored me), moreover, I said I agreeded the spanish sttlers of California of the first half of the XIX century did regard him as a pirate. However he had a corsair license, his ship had the argentine flag, and all the money he made was given to the Argentine State. Then it is ovious that he was not an actual pirate, otherwise the after the trial made against him by the chileans, he would not have been appointed for the Peruvian Navy to be eventually named Admiral in Chief; he would have been hanged. The only non-neutral piont of view is the Spanish-Californian and so I proceeded to delete that from the opening section because of WP:NPOV.


 * "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. "


 * The fact that he was a corsair and not a pirate is not a point of view, it is the only objective possibility. You don't say that a soldier is a murderer because he kills, he is intended to. Likewise you don't say that a spy is a traitor, it is his/her job. I can't see the problem. you may like it or not, but he was a corsair and history can not be changed. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the exact dispute? Why not put both points of view into the article and be done with it? For example, "Some California historians regard him as a pirate (cite sources), while Argentinians view him as a bona fide corsair (cite sources)"? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 00:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Argentino, lo siento but I agree with Lordkinbote. The Spanish-Californians were non-neutral and did (apparently) view him as a pirate, even though he was operating under a letter of marque from Argentina.  I think that it is appropriate in WPedia to include both historical points of view.
 * The "small minority" POV quote you are relying upon only applies to how many modern scholars hold the POV. That is, if only a small minority of modern scholars agreed that he was a viewed as a pirate, then perhaps the statement should not be included.  However, if most modern scholars agree that Spanish-Californians viewed him as a pirate, then that is a historical fact as to which there is generally modern agreement - as such it is appropriate to include. NorCalHistory 01:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 01:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On re-reading the article one more time, perhaps it's not quite appropriate to include the "regarded as a pirate" statement in the first sentence of the lead. Hippolyte de Bouchard did a lot of things, and to place the "regarded as a pirate" statement in such a prominent position in the lead is not quite the appropriate place, given the importance of everything else that he did.  Perhaps the statement should be moved to the end of the lead. NorCalHistory 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If de Bouchard was operating under a letter of marque, then I do not believe the "pirate" label is appropriate. Perhaps a link could be inserted into the article which would route Wikipedians to another article in which the privateer/pirate issue is discussed in detail. I know that the vox populi may not understand the difference, and might use the term "pirate."  But within the encyclopedia, I think that the distinction is important. --Fix Bayonets! 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've always said. A reply to NorCalHistory: Indeed, he did a lot of things. After this debate is over I'll add the battle against the kingdom of Hawaii and the bombing of El Callao, which are very important too.

And for GeorgeLouis, I don't think there is any Californian historian saying he was a pirate. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true, at least 4 sources I've checked either refer to him as a pirate outright or state that he is regarded as a pirate:


 * Jones, California from the Conquistadores to the Legends of Laguna ("Pirate Buchar") ASIN B0006R3LVM;
 * Leffingwell, California Missions and Presidios: The History & Beauty of the Spanish Missions (refers to Bouchard as a pirate and a brigand) ISBN 0-89658-492-5;
 * Yenne, The Missions of California ("California's only pirate") ISBN 1-59223-319-8; and
 * Young, The Missions of California (refers to Bouchard as a pirate) ISBN 0-8118-1938-8.


 * All of this doesn't include the various web sites listed that use the "pirate" term, the article on the Spanish Wikipedia as referenced above ("For the Argentine historians their facts constitute remarkable heroic acts within Argentine naval history; for others, Bouchard, due to his excesses, was simply a cruel pirate"), or the Wikipedia article privateer: "To the target country, a privateer looked very much like a pirate, and indeed this was the intention. The only difference was that pirates were considered outlaws by all nations, while privateers had immunity from the country that commissioned them. Privateers were sometimes known as 'gentleman pirates'."


 * --Lord Kinbote 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you please tell me the ISBN number of the one who says he was a pirate and doesn't mention he was a corsair? Since I am allowed into the "history" building of the national library I'll be able to check. Remember that we are not discussing whether your edits are right or not, only the importance of them. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The requested info has been added above in bold.--Lord Kinbote 22:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have discarded number 2 and 3 because neither Leffingwell nor Yenne are professional historians: the first is a photographer is own blog and the second is an "author and book producer" —Argentino (talk/cont.) 00:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be too quick to dismiss Bill Yenne, he's got dozen's of history-related works to his credit. Out of curiosity I ran a text search on Amazon.com using "Hippolyte de Bouchard" and "Hipolito Bouchard" as the search criteria; nearly every text excerpt contained the word "pirate" though as Rjensen's recent edit summary pointed out, Bouchard had a "minimal role in California." Clearly, there is a cultural if not a historical legacy--I'd support some version of the Spanish article's treatment, sans the word cruel. Mdhennessey 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Stanley Young hasn't published any history books, and among his pubblications is "Beautiful Spas and Hotsprings of California"; and I can't find Jones. The book is not aviable (unless I buy a $130 collector's edition). So there is no historian (man/woman that has studied many years and knows how to deal with primary sources and identify false documents) who denies that Bouchard had the permission of Argentina to be a corsair, or at least no historian whose books are aviable. So that is still a mere subjective point of view. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 23:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody opposed me in the comment (2/0/1), I'll proceed to remove the "pirate" bit from the opening section and to add it to the California Raids section. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Later life???
This article is missing a last act! It abruptly ends with his December 1818 raids on California. It has absolutely no information on what happened to him after this, even though he is said to have lived until 1843. Obviously, something is missing here.

Because of this missing section, and because citations are almost entirely absent, I've changed the article rating from B-class to Start-class. Peter G Werner 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GA failed
I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article. The criteria requires inline citations throughout the article to allow readers to check information to ensure its verifiability. The best way to help fix this would be to go through each section and add an inline citation to each statement that you think may be questioned. Additionally, the lead section should be expanded more to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for more details. Maybe also consider getting a peer review to help fix any other issues the article may have. When you have done these things, and looked over the rest of the criteria, please do consider renominating again. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto. Quick-failed just on footnotes and refs again. THey come after punctuation with no space between, not before them. The web ref format is very poor. See Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) for good ref samples. Sumoeagle179

Dates of birth and death
There seem to be discepancies between sources on the dates of birth and death. Some say 1783-1843, one says he died in 1837, and one that simply says he was born "around 1785". This article used to say 1783-1843, but now it says 1780-1843 in the into while elsewhere it says he died in 1837. If there's a serious dispute over his dates of birth and death we should say so. Either way we should be more consistent. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The date of death is 1843. The problem is the date of birth only; I have found 1780 more times in books, but 1783 is more common in internet. I think books are more reliable than internet so I added 1983 small together with 1780. --Argentini an 01:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a good treatment of the birthdates. Regarding the death, the article now says:
 * During his retirement he decided to live in the properties that had been given to him by the Peruvian Government, San Javier y San José de la Nazca. A long time ago he had lost contact with his family: after the expedition with Brown he had lived with his wife only ten months, and he never knew his younger daughter who was born after the begining of the expedition arround the world. In his fields he treated the slaves as he treated the sailors. Fed up of his punishments, one of his servants killed him on Januay 4 1837.
 * Do we know that to be incorrect? ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of an alternative date of death. --Argentini an 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well you said above that 1843 was his date of death, but you wrote in the atricle that he was killed in 1837. Granted, pirates didn't lead tidy lives that make record keeping easy. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I missed that. Now the article says "1843". Do you think the lead section and the references are good enough to renominate this article as a GA candidate? --Argentini an 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that. Yes, I think it's worth nominating for GA. Your work on the article has improved it substantially. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
I have added a request for a review of the GA-failed. WP:GA/R --Argentini an 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The reviewers agreed the article should not have been "quick-failed" and told me to nominate it gain --Argentini an 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was also recommended that you make some necessary changes. In its current state, it may not be quick-failed, but, if reviewed adequately, it will fail review. If it should pass in its current state, it would probably go back to GA/R and be subsequently delisted if improvements were not made. I recommend looking back over the discussion, now in archive, and address listed issues. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review, commencing 12 July 2007
I have volunteered to be the Good Article reviewer for the nomination placed by Argentini an and have left introductary remarks on his talk page. If he and I agree to this proceeding, I'll be leaving my comments here. I will employ a three-tier scheme of remarks: : you are past the gate. : I think you've got some work to get to FA, but it suffices for the overall "decent, satisfactory" criteria of GA. : You've got a little work to do for GA. Unless someone suggests otherwise, I'll be basing my remarks on Revision 142724031 as edited by Argentini an at 15:07, 5 July 2007. I expect to make my first pass comments here on 15 July 2007. Take care. — Gosgood 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) I have completed my review. Particulars below:

Good Article Nomination Review

 * Commencing: 2007-07-12
 * Completed: 2007-07-14
 * Nominator: Argentini an
 * Reviewer: Gosgood
 * Based on: Revision 142724031 as edited by Argentini an (Talk | contribs) at 15:07, 5 July 2007.
 * Remark: On 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC), this review was amended by an anonymous editor. Anyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, though, according to guidelines talk page commentary should be signed. Since I do not wish this editor's contributions to this review to be construed as parts of my review, please note that Boldface commentary outslide of list indicia ( 'Recommendation' ) is that of 66.174.92.167 (Talk), and his or her marginalia does not necessarily reflect my point of view. Take care. — Gosgood 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Should Bouchard's name include "de"?
The name "de Bouchard" would normally indicate an aristocratic French family. that doesn't seem to be the case here, since the article names the father as "André Louis Bouchard". Did Hippolyte Bouchard adopt the aristocratic form himself? Was it given to him posthumously as an honorific? Was it just a spelling error?

The only source cited that uses the "de Bouchard" spelling is a brief, badly-written article on the website "The California State Military Museum". The article doesn't link to any other sources. I don't think it qualifies as a "reliable source".

The origin of the name change should be noted and sourced in the article. If that change can't be sourced, I propose that the article be renamed "Hippolyte Bouchard". What say the editors? WCCasey (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Page moved, name corrected and website discrepancies noted. WCCasey (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Did Bouchard become an Argentine citizen?
A recent edit of the opening sentence changed "French and Argentine" to French Argentine. That raises the question: did Bouchard become an Argentine citizen? The article doesn't say. I'll tag it for now. WCCasey (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hippolyte Bouchard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016134846/http://www.odonnell-historia.com.ar/anecdotario/EL%20AGUILA%20GUERRERA%20parte%20IV.htm to http://www.odonnell-historia.com.ar/anecdotario/EL%20AGUILA%20GUERRERA%20parte%20IV.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)