Talk:Cape Horn

I think the page would look pretty good if the first image of the cape was resized larger. Are there standard sizes for pictures like that by any chance?

That doesn't sound right. Commercial and naval ships did it all the time until the Panama Canal was built, and this includes the great age of sail. Climbing Everest seems more like an end in and of itself, whereas rounding the horn is simply a rough stretch of some passage from A to B. It is probably the most challenging feat in sailing, but comes about by necessity and not by sport. Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 17:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

The analogy is probably misleading on several levels actually - Everest is not even the most challenging feat of climbing, both K2 and Cerro Torre are harder for instance. This should be replaced by a good quote from some notable sailor or sailing publication about how the amateur sailing community characterizes the feat. Stan 20:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Whether it's misleading or not, it does seem widely used, so it belongs in the article. I've added some more concrete references to the weather and sailing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that people going round in ships referred to it in that way; but when talking about small-boat sailing, and in particular single-handed sailing, the term "Everest of sailing" or some variation is very widely used. Although I'm not a "notable sailor", I'll be looking for references to back this up. — Johan the Ghost _seance 21:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quote: The first small boat to sail around Cape Horn was the 42-foot (13 m) yacht Saoirse, sailed by Connor O'Brien with three friends, who rounded it during a circumnavigation of the world between 1923 and 1925.[1] Endquote This seems not correct. To my knowledge Joshua Slocum with his cutter Spray passed Magellhan Straits as early as 1895. See the German Wikipedia's article on Joshua Slocum for details. Does anybody know better ? — Norbert 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rounding the cape means to round in the south. Magellan Strait is in the north. 62.176.232.130 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

IMO, there are (now) too many quotes in the Lit section, at a certain point, chunks of quotes become a distraction from the article itself (I find that the case here). I'd lose at least the second part of Moitessier (if not all of him), which gets slightly off topic, and is only editorializing by way of a quote (which isn't a particularly eloquent one at that). WDYT? --Tsavage 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well... Moitessier's writing style is certainly quirky (translated from French, of course) — idiosyncratic, for sure — but if you read the whole book, it's compelling and passionate. The quote captured that for me, but of course I've read the book several times. Still, it's certainly very widely regarded as one of the great classics of sailing literature.

As for there being too much — yes, it could be trimmed, I guess. But the "Here comes Cape Horn!" quote is great, and captures the tough side of things; and Moitessier's rhapsodising to me completely captures the allure of the Southern Ocean, which after all continues to attract large numbers of recreational sailors. The last sentence in particular seems to me to complement the "Recreational and sport sailing" section nicely. So maybe I would prefer to lose the first Moitessier quote? I can see how someone unfamiliar with Moitessier would find his writing — particularly out of context — tricky, so I'd be willing to chop the lot; although it seems a shame, because to someone who can relate to it, I would say it sums things up well. What do you think? — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well (and this is 100% just discussing the article, nothing to do with FAC where I think my comment is finished), the more brutal editor side of me would say chop the lot for Moitessier (it's just too much after the other two, for an article and section of this length), but the part that seems to push it to IMO a little excess is M's second quote, which also takes the focus off Cape Hope, and to the broader topic of great capes. I find it interesting, but the format of an encyclopedia article perhaps doesn't (giving equal balance to the other Horn material in the article). So maybe just kill that. And it seems better to close on a final bit of article text, not a quote. (You COULD start a new subarticle, Cape Horn in literature...just kidding... :) --Tsavage 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The whole literature section only came about 'cos of a comment in the peer review -- but it is an interesting subject... ;-) Anyhow, you're better able than me to judge the impact of the Moitessier stuff on non-fans, so I've chopped it down a fair bit. How's it look now? Feel free to tweak. Cheers, and thanks for the continued help, -- Johan the Ghost _seance 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

That seems in pretty good balance. It was an overall good read.... So THAT'S why I review FACs! ;> I'll keep it on my watchlist in case I run into anything interesting on topic... Good luck with FA. Cheers! --Tsavage 17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I removed this:

Cape Horn is also the subject of a popular Gordon Lightfoot song "The Ghosts of Cape Horn."

since I'm sure there are many references like this in songs etc. If you want to put it back, think about working up a decent paragraph or two on cultural references. — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dutch makes sense, but is there any particular reason why the name is also given in Spanish? —Keenan Pepper 04:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Because Spanish is the language they speak around there, probably. We usually state the local name in articles on geographical places. Shanes 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant. I need to go to bed. =P —Keenan Pepper 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cape Horn was originally given the Dutch name "Kaap Hoorn", in honour of the Dutch city of Hoorn; in a typical example of false friends, the Horn became known in English as "Cape Horn", and in Spanish as "Cabo de Hornos" (which literally means "Cape of Ovens").[4] It is commonly known to sailors simply as The Horn.[5]

Unless I'm mistaken (and my Dutch dictionary tells me the same), hoorn means horn in English, regardless of if it's named after a city. Strangely enough, the German article on the city of Hoorn [1] says that hoorn means cape, which I think must be a mistake? Anyway, if it does mean horn, "false friend" shouldn't be used here. If it doesn't, please tell us what it does mean! --Grocer 05:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

"False friend" shouldn't be used in any case because it's a literal translation of "faux amis," a French term which, in more precise linguistic language, means "false cognate," which would be preferable here, though still not (apprently) accurate. If the linguistic data is correct, what we're seeing (reading, hearing) is a case of homonymity: Dutch "hoorn" is a homonym of "horn," etc. funkendub 21March

In Dutch hoorn (indeed meaning horn) is also used for horn-shaped geographical features, just like horn in English, compare e.g. Hoorn van Afrika, Horn of Africa. The Dutch Wikipedia article on the city of Hoorn [2] has plenty of explanations for its name, for instance that the town was named after its legendary founder Hornus, son of a local king, but also that it was named after the horn shape of its early harbours. In any case, despite being a "false friend" or whatever the correct linguistic term is, the name Cape Horn makes sense of itself too, which might not be said of Cabo de Hornos. Stefan29 19:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

If someone can find a source for this we can put it back (with maybe better grammar):

In 1984 by intermediation of Pope John Paul II was firmed a Peace and Friendship Treaty (Tratado de Paz y Amistad in Spanish) between Argentina and Chile ending a dispute on the region.

— Johan the Ghost _seance 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The official Chilean Gov. document is here. Also you can find a link with a map inside on it here

Unfortunely :-) Spanish is the official language of the two countries involved so the document seems not to be in english

Jor70 11:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I appreciate your comments, and of course I an grateful for your efforts to make this a better and more complete article. Certainly information about a territorial dispute is very welcome, and I appreciate work by a non-English speaker to improve the English Wikipedia.

However, I have some problems with the paragraph as it stands, and I'm afraid that I can't see it being allowed to remain in its current state. Problems:

• Most importantly, it doesn't provide any context:

• What exactly was the dispute?
• Which areas were affected?
• How did it arise?
• When did efforts begin to get it resolved?
• How did the Pope get involved?
• Which leaders signed the treaty?

• References: of course, Spanish is the local language, and primary references will be in Spanish. However, it would be really good if we could get some English references.
• The current reference is to a map which shows the current borders: this says nothing about the dispute.

Once again, I feel that this is an important topic which deserves to be covered, so we should try to work towards resolving the above issues; in particular, we really need to cover more of the context. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will search something on the following days, could 1984 Argentina and Chile Peace and Friendship Treaty be ok as a title for a new article ? Jor70 12:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. And here's a good reference: [3]. Another: [4]; English copy of the treaty: [5]. — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

1984 Argentina and Chile Peace and Friendship Treaty is a start. Todo: find/create some maps, add categories, ... Jor70 16:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

You've done a good job on that article, well done! The only problem I see now is that it doesn't really relate to Cape Horn. The Picton, Lennox and Nueva article is a good place to refer to this, but Cape Horn didn't really seem to be involved in the dispute. What do you think? — Johan the Ghost _seance 13:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! BTW, could you please check the grammar of the new article. You are right about the relation, I didnt realized about the islands article since I wrote the Treaty, I thought before we could move it to See also due all the area wasnt clearly limited until it was signed, but now I seeing that the Political section also talks about Ushuaia that is cleary far away of Cape Horn and much close to the conflict area, so perhaps the mention of the Treaty should stay. Jor70 20:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have to say there really doesn't seem to be any case for discussing the treaty in this article, since it's just not related. Ushuaia is mentioned because it's the nearest large town (hence the place you would fly to to visit the area). I've moved the treaty to the "See also" section. — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I can find no English-language reference for the following, or even to support the existence of "Don Francisco de Hoces"; OTOH, I have any number of references which show Drake as the first likely rounder of the Horn. Therefore weight of evidence compels me to remove this for now. If we can find some reputable references to back this up, and to explain why the Drake version has become so widely accepted, we can revisit this:

In 1526, Don Francisco de Hoces, captain of the San Lesmes (part of a fleet of seven ships commanded by Don Garcia Jofré de Loyosa) was forced south when trying to cross the Strait of Magellan, reaching 55º south before turning north and passing by Cape Horn in their way to rejoin the fleet.[6] [7].

BTW, saying that the "real" name of the Drake Passage is "Mar del Hoces" is absurd; every chart shows it as the Drake Passage. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

• "The Cape" is the Cape of Good Hope (in traditional sailors' usage).
• "The cape" refers to whatever cape is under discussion.
• "The Horn" is Cape Horn.

— Johan the Ghost _seance 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the following addition, because it is unsourced, and a lot of it is duplication of existing material:

The islands and shoal water south of the Horn refract (bend) the waves. These waves then add to other waves downwind creating very large steep dangerous waves. The 4000 feet deep current of the Southern Ocean hits the continental shelf around the Horn and is directed upward. This upwelling interacts with the waves increasing their height and steepness. It also refracts the waves, changing their direction, leading to waves that add together downstream. The deep waters south of the continental shelf offer much safer passage in heavy weather.

It can go in if it can be better integrated into the existing text, and backed up with sources. — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wikipedians: not to promote unrest, but to keep things balanced, I've added the tag for "Wikiproject Argentina" as this geographic feature is of utmost importance to that country as well as Chile.
The reason why: it is the southernmost point of the border between both countries, as has been stated in international traties between them. I don't think necessary to source this comment, but if anyone feels that is needed please let me know and will find out and include "verifiable" evidence.
By the way, I believe the article is very good, although no reference at all is made to Argentina but only to Chile (why?).
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually Cape Horn is no more the southern boundary between these two countries than say Staten Island (Isla de Los Estados) or Mount Aconcagua. Both of these later points are well within the borders of Argentina, as Cape Horn is well within Chile's. The former, Staten Island (Isla del los Estados) is almost exactly the same distance, 71 miles, from the nearest Chilean Land (Isla Nueva) as Cape Horn is from the nearest land in Argentina (near Bahia Sloggett). Aconcagua is, if I recall correctly, less than 10 miles from the border from Chile.

Given these facts, I can find no way to explain your confusion as to why Argentina is not mentioned in this article or why it could possibly belong in the Wikiproject Argentina any more than Isla de los Estados or Aconcagua belongs in the Wikiproject Chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.235.45 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Argentina-Tag retired. --Keysanger (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tell me what it sounds like you're saying if you say "Cape Horn" really fast. --72.45.99.218 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gay Porn! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.146.157 (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

This reference in the quoted passage from Dana's Two Years Before the Mast "the little brig, which was no better than a bathing machine" should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing_machine so that people will know what a bathing machine is. Thanks for a great article! Rumjal rumjal 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)