banner



Home  ›  Who Funded Money To Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo

Who Funded Money To Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo

Written By Wednesday, May 25, 2022 Add Comment Edit

If Cabrilho was Portuguese and sailing for the Castilian before 1580, that would make him a traitor like Magellan (Portugal and Espana were enemies, and Spain annexed Portugal effectually 1580). Perhaps that explains why his proper name is not famous in Portugal?

Cabrilho is quite well known in Portugal. Where does such foreign thought comes from? He even came in Portuguese postal stamps, etc.75.42.79.126 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC) [respond]
That is not how it worked. Portugal and Espana were rivals - not enemies, apart from when they were actually engaged in some conflict - and people from all over Iberia worked from one or the other country without being labelled "traitors". At that place were as well same Castillian, Basque and Galician (and others) sailors working for Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.208.165 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Espana did not addendum Portugal in 1580. Male monarch D. Sebastião died immature and without a successor during a armed forces incursion into Kingdom of morocco. This resulted in a succession crisis temporarily resolved with the appointment of his uncle Cardinal D. Henrique as interim king. At the time of his decease in 1580 King Filipe Two of Spain, beingness a grandson of King Manuel I of Portugal, was legally recognised past the Portuguese Cortes (kind of Parliament) equally King of Portugal. The two kingdoms remained fully separated (ran by dissever administrations) until 1620 when Madrid moved to merge the ii administrations. This led to the revolution of 1640 and the appointment of Afonso IV as male monarch of Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added past 41.212.16.118 (talk) xi:twoscore, 29 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

An anonymous user has changed Cabrillo to Cabrilho throughout, merely fortunately has not suppressed the reference to the recent biography that discusses his parentage. Localist competitions make for second-rate history, wherever they turn up. Wetman 20:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you can see that this is in fact truthful at http://world wide web.britannica.com/eb/article-9018466/Juan-Rodriguez-Cabrillo. the proper noun is portuguese. english language inverse it to juan rodriguez cabrillo. just as mary is maria, marie and maro. :D

That was undoubtedly his birthname. Notwithstanding in the English linguistic communication he's all-time known every bit "Cabrillo", so that's what we call him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 9 Nov 2007 (UTC) [answer]

But Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo is not his true proper name. For correctness I think the article should exist named after the explorer true name! Of course with the mention of his nickname... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.82.99.85 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC) [respond]

Names hither in the English Wikipedia become listed as they are normally referred to in English. For example we have Francis I of France (not François); Victor Emmanuel III of Italia (rather than Vittorio Emanuele); etc. In the U.S., and in Spanish America for which he sailed, he is always referred to every bit Cabrillo. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, xix December 2012 (UTC) [respond]

This is rubbish - and so why information technology is John Cabot and then, and not Juan Cabot? When in fact Giovanni Caboto was from Venice? The true proper noun is João Rodrigues Cabrilho - phone call it John in English if you lot want, but why Juan? Total nonsense, lack of scientific rigour as well!! — Preceding unsigned comment added past 130.183.203.14 (talk) twenty:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It's "John Cabot", because that is the most common name in English. Same reason hither, as explained above and at WP:COMMONNAME. but you can't fifty-fifty come up with a consistent analogy for your argument. Til Eulenspiegel /[[User talk:Til

Eulenspiegel|talk]]/ 20:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Information technology seems the lack of consistency is instead on the Wikipedia policy - at times using John (like in many Portuguese kings' names) for Portuguese João, and in this case using instead the Castilian name Juan for João. It is sad to meet that Wikipedia best sentence/definition of consistency is then based on "what is more common", even if being common means being wrong.75.42.79.126 (talk) 03:56, ten November 2014 (UTC) [respond]
Speaking of consistency still - Sebastião Rodrigues Soromenho shows up with his Portuguese name in the English Wikipedia entry, when describing his 1595-1596 trek along the declension of California, also when the Bay of San Francisco got its name (today's Drake Bay). Why not use his "castilianized" name instead (every bit washed with Cabrilho) then: Sebastián Rodríguez Cermeño? Lots of consistency from Wikipedia here - bah....
The Us Library of Congress uses the name João Cabrilho in their web pages. What about that for consistency - information technology is the USA Library of Congress! Probably that is not a "reliable source" or "the most common usage" for the Wikipedia people either. The Library of Congress puts the Portuguese in their Hispanic department though. This is fine if being the Greek/Roman Empire Hispania Province (before Portugal and 300 years subsequently Spain, fifty-fifty existed). Totally incorrect though if being the uniquely bizarre USA-used merely incorrect anthropo-ethnic definition of Hispanic people nowadays, that scientifically should be chosen mestizos (in Spanish - or mamelucos, in Portuguese), like in a cross-bread between Europeans and local natives.

And since when Portuguese names João are called Juan in English? That is not the case for many Kings of Portugal, that in English are called correctly João or John (adopting the English equivalent). Say João I, João II, João Three - that are known every bit such or John I, John II, John 3. How consistent is that in usage of names? How consequent is as well to take English replaced by Castilian? And if this is just because "it is the most common proper name", then you can likewise keep perpetuating other mistakes in history and scientific discipline - and change the geometrical shape of Earth from sphere to a foursquare, because that used to exist more common too ages agone. Does the word update ways anything to you?

Per policy, we should reverberate the fact that nearly all of the literature on him in English notwithstanding calls him "Juan Cabrillo", until such fourth dimension every bit it tin be said that "nearly of the works coming out nigh him are at present spelling information technology Joao Cabrilho." I oasis't seen whatever evidence of a trend in this direction. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:33, xi August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Well and then it is your choice: wait for everyone to catch up, or atomic number 82 the change at present to what are correct information, facts and names. That is what distinguishes a leader from a follower.

Too essentially the vast bulk (unfortunately....sigh!...) of USA-authors based history is completely at fault when it refers Balboa to be the first European to sight the Pacific in 1512. In 1511 Antonio de Abreu was already in Timor - and the due east coast of Timor is on the Pacific already. Anyway Pacific Ocean is the proper name that comes only also subsequently Magellan in the 1520's. This is clear like water in all serious and mistake-clean scientific historic literature. Yet, you lot discover again and again the same mistake in many U.s.a. scientific published papers or even books. Zero is perfect, nobody knows everything - only this Balboa mistake is a systematic example where "being more common" does not makes information technology right. Likewise, mutatis mutandis, with João Cabrilho. Over again information technology is your choice: you lot desire to be "trendy", go with what all the crowd does, or exist right and scientifically detailed?!!!

On the same line of ideas - well-nigh everyone used to say Cabrilho was Spanish, simply now that finally has been corrected even in the Wikipedia. It took a while unfortunately, nobody wanted to look into scientific data: just following what the "crowd" was doing.

Ok - let the crowd keep making mistakes and Wikipedia be passive about it. Juan and so...

Dixit.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.203.xiv (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia does not pb. Nosotros follow what the Reliable Sources are saying. And the Reliable Sources are pretty articulate in referring to him equally Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo (starting with the U.South. government with Cabrillo National Monument). (Re: near everyone used to say Cabrilho was Spanish,; I live in San Diego and I can assure you lot that nobody either here or on Wikipedia has ever claimed that Cabrilho was Spanish; encounter, for instance, this version from 2006. It's just as information technology says in the article, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo is what he was called when he was sailing for the Spanish Empire; João Cabrilho is how his name would have been rendered in Portuguese.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 12 Baronial 2013 (UTC) [answer]

I practice not know why Wikipedia leads into errors so, if it does non lead into correct facts. If the United states of america government insists in writing in the US dollars bills "in God nosotros trust", it does non mean all USA citizens are believers in a God. I practise non call that a "Reliable Source". If the Portuguese Government/Navy wrote in the modern statue/Monument to Cabrilho "João Rodrigues Cabrilho" - why is information technology non the Portuguese Navy a reliable source and then? Is it reliable only written - wrongly ! - in the Castilian "version" (???!!!!) ?? Over again if this is a question of using the English language equivalent - then utilize John, but why adopting in the past and standing to practise the aforementioned error of using a Castilian proper name for a Portuguese sailor? Why Juan? Why Rodriguez? Why Cabrillo? This makes no sense at all when these names are not English language either. So the just thing the Wikipedia is leading/contributing to is making an error perpetual. Again you tin can go along maxim the Earth is flat or foursquare if you want - but because "Reliable Sources" used to say so. These guardians of "knowledge" in the Medieval Age concluded up burning Giordano Bruno alive, simply because he was not a "Reliable Source", defending planets should exist around other stars. I remember information technology is a blunt fault keep using a Castilian proper name for a Portuguese sailor - if you are not using the English equivalent anyway. Is this to assistance the excellent world geography and earth history levels of knowledge the average US denizen has?

I strongly and politely advise y'all to redefine "Reliable Sources" - I gave the example of Balboa above to see how "Reliable Sources" tin can be wrong. I am merely request for logic - you insist in applying an old and incorrect recipe "just because it has been so". This is called a bad bourgeois posture. Conserving the fault. Or is Castilian the official language of California now? I idea it was English. — Preceding unsigned comment added past 178.2.61.lxx (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC) [respond]

Nearly every source in the cyberspace describes Cabrillo as portuguese, including the spanish edition of the wikipedia. And so I inverse the nationality from spanish to portuguese. 84.90.18.136 19:nineteen, 30 October 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Alas - how could you have done that? What a fault, if what was more than common before was to consider Cabrilho Spanish. How dare y'all? Wikipedia runs (seemingly) based on "what is more common", even if being mistakes...and then you just defied such policy - and hey...actually ran into facts and scientific accuracy instead. Bravo!!75.42.79.126 (talk) 04:00, ten November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

he was the first person to discover san diego shores —The preceding unsigned annotate was added past 71.9.91.114 (talk) 00:26, eleven January 2007 (UTC). [reply]

No, the local natives discovered that expanse long earlier he arrived. That said, Cabrillo led the commencement European trek to see many California sites. -Will Beback · † · 01:26, eleven Jan 2007 (UTC) [respond]

His name came a cat carc that now is extient[[Media:[[Media: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.232.239 (talk) 01:32, xviii October 2007 (UTC) [answer]

The Origin of Cabrillo's voyage was not from Mexico [edit]

The flagship San Salvador and Victoria were non built in Navidad, Mexico. Cabrillo (co-ordinate to the post-obit word in the castilian Wikipedia article by Professor Carmen González Huguet of the José Matías Delgado University in San Salvador, El salvador) Built these ships on the orders of Pedro de Alvarado in the Xiribaltique Bay, in native tongue (now called the Jiquilisco Bay in Usulutan Department of El salvador). He departed from the Port of Acaxutla (now Acajutla, still a pocket-size port past the way)off the Salvadoran declension bound north to Navidad, Mexico and on to discover the coast of California. Furthermore, she mentions not two ships, but rather thirteen that were built and piloted by Cabrillo, of grade the San Salvador being the flagship.

Her narrative.......(Spansih)

"Mi nombre es Carmen González Huguet, soy profesora de Historia de la Universidad "Dr. José Matías Delgado", en El Salvador. He leído con curiosidad la página sobre Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo y quisiera referirme a united nations error de bulto. Dicen ustedes textualmente:

"En 1540 united nations terremoto destruyó la antigua ciudad de Santiago de Republic of guatemala, se dice que Cabrillo notificó del incidente a la corona española y esa información se considera el primer reportaje que se haya enviado de un acontecimiento ocurrido en el nuevo mundo hacia Europa.- Desde united nations puerto guatemalteco de la costa del océano pacífico, Cabrillo se dedicó durante un tiempo a importar y exportar mercaderías entre España, Republic of guatemala y otras partes del imperio español"

Esta información no es exacta. La villa de Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala fue fundada primeramente por don Pedro de Alvarado en las cercanías de Iximché, capital de los señores cakchiqueles, en 1524, durante la primera etapa de la conquista de Guatemala. En 1527 los cakchiqueles, aliados de los españoles como los tlaxcaltecas en México, se rebelaron. Eso forzó a los españoles a fundar nuevamente la villa de Santiago en un paraje próximo a la actual Ciudad Vieja, en el valle de Almolonga, el 22 de noviembre de 1527.

En la madrugada del 11 de septiembre de 1541, un alud de piedras y lodo bajó del Volcán de Agua (que no un terremoto) y destruyó la ciudad. En este desastre murió doña Beatriz de la Cueva, la viuda del conquistador Pedro de Alvarado. Esta señora había sido nombrada Gobernadora de Guatemala a la muerte de su marido. Fue la única mujer que ostentó dicho cargo en toda la época colonial. La destrucción de la villa hizo que volviera a fundarse, esta vez en el valle de Panchoy, en la bodily ubicación conocida como Antigua Guatemala.

En la probanza de méritos de sus descendientes, se afirma que Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo y su familia tuvieron encomiendas en el territorio de El Salvador, en Jicalapa, población situada en la zona conocida hoy con el nombre de Costa del Bálsamo, entre los actuales departamentos de Sonsonate y La Libertad. Bernal Díaz del Castillo, en su "Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España menciona en el capítulo CCIII (México, Alianza ditorial, 1991, pag. 831): "Razón es que se traiga a la memoria y no quede por olvido una muy buena fleet que el adelantado don Pedro de Alvarado hizo el año de 1537 en la provincia de Guatemala, donde era gobernador, y en un puerto que se dice Acaxutla, en la banda del sur, y fue para cumplir ciertas capitulaciones que con su majestad hizo la segunda vez que volvió a Castilla y vino casado con una señora que se decía doña Beatriz de la Cueva; y fue el concierto que se capituló con su majestad, que el adelantado pusiese ciertos navíos y pilotos y marineros y soldados y bastimentos, y todo lo que hubiese menester, a su costa, para enviar a descubrir por la vía del poniente a la Red china o Malucos u otras cualquier isla de la Especiería..." Aquí Bernal trenza datos de dos expediciones: la de 1537, cuando Alvarado fue, efectivamente, a Perú, y la de 1540, cuando iba a las islas de la Especiería. En este segundo viaje fue cuando llegado al puerto de Navidad el virrey Mendoza suscribió con Alvarado unas capitulaciones. El gobernador de Guatemala acudió en defensa de los españoles que estaqban siendo atacados por los indios y Alvarado murió, en el peñol de Nochistlán, a consecuencia de las heridas que le ocasionó un caballo que rodó por una pendiente: el caballo del escribano Baltasar Montoya. Acaxutla no es otra que el actual puerto de Acajutla, en la costa del departamento de Sonsonate. Conclusión: de acuerdo con la probanza de méritos, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo construyó en Xiribaltique (en la actual bahía de Jiquilisco, departamento de Usulután) y pilotó para don Pedro de Alvarado una armada de trece barcos (el dato es de Bernal) que partió de Acajutla y que eventualmente descubrió California."

KeniKex 21:03, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)

An IP recently changed Cabrillo'due south birthdate, which we had listed equally March xiii, 1499, to "unknown". Another editor reverted the change, merely on research I believe the IP was right. I could find no scholarly support for that date or for any birthdate. Biographies mostly state that his birthdate, birthplace and parentage are unknown; from his subsequently career they speculate that he was born around 1498 to 1500. I have changed the birthdate in the article appropriately, with references. OK with everybody? --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, xx Jan 2014 (UTC) [respond]

I reverted the IP as doubtable without a source but since you accept found one, information technology'southward all good... Also I have no idea where the March xiii 1499 appointment came from or who added it - I but reverted for the reason I gave. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

New placements [edit]

After juan cabrillo named california, Sebastian Vizcaino explored subsequently him and renamed those places. Those names made our nowadays day california. ---- ecall992 juan cabrillo. In life

I had evidence about the naming

In the section titled "Nationality" is this sentence (partially quoted hither): "His nationality was first addressed by contemporary Spanish orly chronicler Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas..." What does "orly" mean?

67.131.78.34 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) [answer]

Thank you for catching that. Information technology was added by a troll in Jan and nobody caught information technology. I've deleted it now. Anything else you see that needs fixing, delight let usa know - or go ahead and prepare it! --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC) [respond]

The article'southward championship should be changed to his real proper name João Rodrigues Cabrilho, since he was a Portuguese national. The electric current brandish is a Spanish variation of his name, but not it's correct writting or spelling. The fact that the English language speaking viewers are more used to the Spanish variation or if the English books present that aforementioned variation is irrelevant. If someone'due south name is, let's imagine, John Thatcher, it would exist ridiculous for the Portuguese commodity entry of him to be displayed equally "João Colmo".

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroLFMA (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:COMMONNAME. For an illustration in exercise, consider the article on Christopher Columbus. If Cabrilho is all-time known to English speakers equally Cabrillo, and then that's the name the article uses. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Then inside the well-nigh respectful terms...that's bias. And the same is valid for Christopher Columbus, which can be understood partially as it is the English translation of his name, in this specific example a Castilian translation of a Portuguese proper name is beingness used in a English language-written article...go figure. Just again, Wikipedia'south users have the ability to change this rules don't they?

Wikipedians practice have the power to change policy, however this is the electric current policy installed. The international customs knows this specific article-subject by his castilian name. the majority of the sources use this name. From this we derive the consensus that the castilian name is the right one to use for the article, there is no doubt. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC) [respond]

A researcher has discovered a document that could finally settle the "Spanish or Portuguese?" debate. In 1532, in a trial involving the theft of golden from a Spanish vessel, one of the witnesses was one Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo - who testified under adjuration that he was born in Palma de Micergilio, which is in the province of Cordova in Spain. Other details of that witness's biography match known facts nigh the Cabrillo who is the subject of this article. [ane] At that place has never earlier been any definite information nearly where he was born. Of form, the Portuguese accept claimed him for centuries and are not probable to give him up without a struggle. How should we handle this new information? --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC) [answer]

This is important! I propose removing "Portuguese" (and any other mention of nationality) from the atomic number 82 paragraph and adding a paragraph to the "Nationality" section referencing this new research and citing the news commodity. WCCasey (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
I agree about calculation the paragraph to the Nationality section (and if possible citing the actual academic paper, too as the news article). Other than that, I think y'all are correct in your implication that we should not blitz into anything. This is a recently announced discovery, it is still being digested by historians. The Portuguese in particular want to review the original documents. I do annotation that the ii best-known historians / biographers of Cabrillo both immediately embraced this new finding. Possibly, as you propose, removing any mention of nationality from the lead and infobox is the style to go - until some kind of academic / national consensus is clear. I may have time to work on that later on this weekend. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC) [answer]

OK, here's a proposal. I suggest that in the first judgement we replace "Portuguese" with "European". In the "Nationality" section, I proposed to replace the beginning paragraph with possibly these two paragraphs (first draft):

His nationality has been debated for centuries. He was described as Portuguese past Spanish chronicler Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas; in his Historia General de los hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano, written 60 years later Cabrillo's expiry, Herrera referred to Cabrillo equally Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo Português.[1] [2] The Portuguese claim him every bit a national hero, and several locations in Portugal claim to be his birthplace. However, the source for Herrera's description is unknown, and some historians have long believed that Cabrillo was from Spain. Harry Kelsey, in his exhaustive 1986 biography Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, writes that Cabrillo probably was born in Seville, Spain.[3]
In 2015 a Canadian researcher, investigating a series of Spanish legal documents from a 1532 lawsuit, constitute that i of the witnesses in the lawsuit was named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. That witness testified nether oath that he was born in Palma de Micergilio, a town in the province of Cordova in Spain.[iv] Other details of the witness's biography lucifer known facts about the explorer. Several historians of Cabrillo hailed the discover as a major historical breakthrough. Robert Munson, historian at the Cabrillo National Monument, said "This could exist the smoking gun that proves where Cabrillo was born." University of San Diego history professor Iris Engstrand said, "In all the articles I've written nearly Cabrillo, I note that we take no proof of where he was built-in. Now nosotros sort of do." Harry Kelsey, a inquiry scholar at the Huntington Library who wrote a major biography of Cabrillo, said, "Right now all the circumstantial evidence points in the right direction (i.east., Spain). This is the well-nigh exciting thing to happen to me in xl years." However, a leader of San Diego's Portuguese community said the new evidence must be carefully evaluated, and requested that copies of the documents be turned over to the Portuguese authorities for study.[four]

  1. ^ Hererra y Todesillas, Antonio de (1601–1615). Historia general de los hechos de los castellanos en las Islas i Tierra firme del Mar Océano. Madrid: En la Empr. Real.
  2. ^ Moriarty, James Robert (1978). Explorers of the Baja and California Coasts. Cabrillo Historical Association. p. 52.
  3. ^ Kelsey, Harry, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Huntington Library Press, 1986
  4. ^ a b "Was Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo from Spain?". San Diego Union Tribune. September 14, 2015. Retrieved 21 September 2015.

One question: I quoted reactions from iii people, is that likewise much? A broader question: The Simply source for this information is an article by Peter Rowe in the San Diego Wedlock Tribune and Los Angeles Times. Everything else I found at Google News is reprints of that commodity. The Canadian researcher does not appear to accept published her results anywhere that I could find. Is information technology too before long to feature this information, if there is just one source for it? Opinions please. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC) [answer]

Thinking farther about this, I remember nosotros should not make such a big deal of it until there is more sourcing. Perhaps a single paragraph like this:

His nationality has been debated for centuries. He was described as Portuguese by Castilian chronicler Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas; in his Historia General de los hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano, written lx years after Cabrillo's death, Herrera referred to Cabrillo as Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo Português.[1] [2] The Portuguese merits him equally a national hero, and several locations in Portugal merits to be his birthplace. All the same, the source for Herrera's description is unknown, and some historians have long believed that Cabrillo was from Espana. Harry Kelsey, in his exhaustive 1986 biography Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, writes that Cabrillo probably was born in Seville, Spain.[3] In 2015 a Canadian researcher, investigating a series of Spanish legal documents from a 1532 lawsuit, establish that one of the witnesses in the lawsuit was named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. That witness testified under oath that he was built-in in Palma de Micergilio, a town in the province of Cordova in Spain.[four] Other details of the witness'south biography match known facts nigh the explorer. Several historians of Cabrillo hailed the discovery as a celebrated observe supporting the idea that Cabrillo was Spanish. However, a leader of San Diego'south Portuguese customs cautioned that the new evidence must be carefully evaluated, and requested that copies of the documents exist turned over to the Portuguese regime for study.[iv]

  1. ^ Hererra y Todesillas, Antonio de (1601–1615). Historia general de los hechos de los castellanos en las Islas i Tierra firme del Mar Océano. Madrid: En la Empr. Real.
  2. ^ Moriarty, James Robert (1978). Explorers of the Baja and California Coasts. Cabrillo Historical Association. p. 52.
  3. ^ Kelsey, Harry, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Huntington Library Printing, 1986
  4. ^ a b "Was Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo from Spain?". San Diego Union Tribune. September fourteen, 2015. Retrieved 21 September 2015.

Comments? (I do still call back we should replace "Portuguese" with "European" in the pb.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

"European" seems unnecessarily ambiguous. He was either Spanish or Portuguese, and the dispute about that is discussed in the "Nationality" section. I still vote for removing all mention of his nationality from the intro. The extra paragraph, every bit written higher up, seems skilful to me, except that I would put the <ref> at the cease of the paragraph (unless at that place are different sources for the last three sentences). --WCCasey
OK, thanks for the input. I'll just get out out any nationality, I call up you're right about that. I would prefer to cite the reference link twice, equally shown - once right at the statement of where he said he was born, since it is and so important and potentially controversial, and once again at the stop of the paragraph to testify the source for the residue of the paragraph. Are you lot OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC) [respond]
I went alee and boldly did information technology. Of course the event is however open for comments, suggestions, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 22:eleven, 22 September 2015 (UTC) [answer]

I call up its of import to recall that, as of import as nationality is in later times, people of Crabillo/Cabrilho's time might not have had the aforementioned view. What was more important was being the field of study of a particular king/nobleman, and possibly a fully vested resident of a town or parish. Where was his hometown, and what king did he obey? The Iberian Peninsula was a circuitous array of overlapping polities during his lifetime.66.68.207.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:nineteen, 28 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Update: The "Castilian birthplace" information has now been published in the San Diego Historical Lodge's journal. IMO that gives the Castilian claim an potency that was never nowadays for the Portuguese claim. Another editor and I have now modified the lede sentence to draw him as born in Espana, while adding that longtime tradition assembly him with Portugal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, xx August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Nearly Cabrillo'south nationality – for more than four hundred years in that location has been no prove of Cabrillo's nationality until 2015 when Dr. Wendy Kramer, (historian, researcher, author and paleographer focusing on 16th century Spanish government and the encomienda system) discovered 1532 documents in Republic of guatemala, Espana and North America that proves that he was a native of Palma de Micer Gilio (today Palma del Rio), Cordoba, Kingdom of spain. In her article in The Journal of San Diego History, volume 62, Summer/Fall 2016 [two] she shows documents from 1532 testimonies that Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo himself testifies that he is from Spain. Furthermore, in her new volume "Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo (C. 1497-1543)" published in Espana this year (2018), she shows over 20 documents that methodically proves that he is native of Spain. Dr. Wendy Kramer is at present working on an English version that should be available in the U.s. by the terminate of this year. --dB (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [answer]
Thanks for the update. As you can meet from the higher up word, we were enlightened of her discovery in 2015, just since we did non have anything authoritative - simply a news report - we were waiting for her to publish her findings. We simply removed "Portuguese" from the lede, leaving no national identity. Now that she has published in a reputable journal, IMO nosotros can regard the question every bit settled and say he was Spanish (while acknowledging the longstanding "Portuguese" tradition). --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, xx August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you for the updates and prepare my references! Finally this mystery was solved! dB (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [answer]
@Dbuena79: This "mystery" is far from solved, you cannot take it upon yourself to continue reinstating that he was spanish in the atomic number 82. The Regal Academy of Spanish History itself continues to listing Cabrillo equally Portuguese. 1 scholarly publication does not give you the power to go along reverting edits and stating with definitiveness that he was Castilian (and it is certainly far from any consensus in the historiographical community). The current phrasing is both accurate and highly neutral, despite the fact that the majority of sources and institutions continue list him every bit Portuguese. Should there exist new developments in the historiography concerning Cabrillo, you lot are welcome to bring them here to the talk page. Otherwise please refrain from acting unanimously on affirming his nationality. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]
The Imperial University of Spanish History does recognize him as Spanish, non Portuguese; have Kramer'south conclusions: [iii]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.214.166 (talk) 10:37, 2 Jan 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I accept just modified 3 external links on Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo. Delight take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the folio altogether, please visit this unproblematic FaQ for additional data. I made the post-obit changes:

  • Added archive https://web.annal.org/spider web/20130402230021/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.great britain/WWcabrillo.htm to http://world wide web.spartacus.schoolnet.co.great britain/WWcabrillo.htm
  • Added archive https://spider web.annal.org/web/20130822014111/http://www.cabrillocivicclubs.org/alphabetize.asp to http://www.cabrillocivicclubs.org/index.asp
  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/spider web/20060627075135/http://world wide web.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/navegaport/d14.html to http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/navegaport/d14.html

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

This message was posted before Feb 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk folio 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 folio sections if they want to de-ataxia talk pages, but see the RfC earlier doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source bank check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can study them with this tool.
  • If you found an mistake with whatsoever archives or the URLs themselves, you lot can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot (Report problems) 00:34, 2 Dec 2017 (UTC) [respond]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Cabrillo

Posted by: standleysamough.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Who Funded Money To Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel