Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitled

This article needs a lot more information -Elcano's role in the mutiny at Patagonia, his relationship with Magellan, his return home to Spain.

• I agree. I have only a little knowledge and incompetent to write in English, therefore, it is difficult to contribute. But, maybe, Nao Victoria, the restored ship of Elcano, will be arrived to Seville in the end of this week or next week after a journey round the world.[1] Therefore, I think it's good time to mend this article on Elcano... --Morio 03:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Île Amsterdam

I have removed a paragraph on a claim of Elcano discovering Île Amsterdam. Pigafetta only says that they left Timor, avoiding all "Greater India" (from Sumatra to Calicut, where the Portuguese were estabilished) and, then reached Cape of Good Hope, in modern South Africa. No mention of any stops or sighted islands at all. And Pigafetta does mention ALL islands they visited or heard of in the Malay Archipielago!

Does anybody have a source for that claim? --Sugaar (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, be careful. What you ignore, can anyway exist. It is universally known that (the later named) Amsterdam island was discovered by Elcano.

The log of Francisco Albo, boatswain in Victoria, is very precise on this subject: on March 19, 1522, they saw an island, which he describes, at around 38º S. By the way, Albo`s log is conserved in the Archivo de Indias, Seville, Legajo 1 Patronato 54 num. 5, and has been published many times along the last 200 years.

So, please restore the information you removed.

All this Elcano article is a real mess; sad ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buron444 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, please put it back yourself, if you are so confident. And if you can provide a source much better. Use: <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> and the source will appear in the references section at the bottom, linked by a small number. --Sugaar (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"There are also reports that the profits were confiscated by the King to pay for the lost ships."

What the heck? This is the most unsourced and unlikely claim I have ever seen. Deleting. --Sugaar (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true according to the book I am reading. The book is The Seafarers- The Explorers. Richard Humble. Time-Life books, Alexandria, Virginia. 1978. Richard Humble was a biographer educated at Oriel College, Oxford specializing in military history in consultation with John Horace Parry, a Gardiner Professor of Oceanic History and Affairs at Harvard University and William Avery Baker, a naval architect, engineer, and curator of the Hart Nautical Museum at the Massachusets Institute of Technology.

On page 162

"There was little profit from this tremendous venture. Charles sold the Victoria's cargo of 26 tons of cloves for 10,000 times its cost of purchase, but this was barely enough for a small surplus after paying the costs of the voyage. The King awarded del Cano a modest pension... The returned crewmen were never paid in full since the voyage's profits had been so scanty; many were still suing for back pay years after their return home." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcpillars (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Facts not mentioned.

I thought I'd share this book that I was lightly reading on de Elcano. Facts it mentions are:

• He was a deep sea fisherman.
• He was a smuggler.
• He fought with Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba.
• He explored "some of the coast of Africa" (my note: this was probably handy since he would be famous for looping around the southern and western coast; but that is conjecture).
• He and Magellan were at odds with one another.
• He was "chained up and forced to do hard labor".

There is more, but these are rather interesting and I thought if anyone wanted to include them, perhaps they could do so. I'm only good at minor editing, not writing. Oh and I have nothing at all to do with the book. I just happened upon it because I read that today is the day Magellan died and one thing led to another and... well you get the idea. Anyhow, cheers! MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Onecontribution user's case against three contributors

Is the third time that I added this, but Akerbeltz and Xabier Armendaritz are continusly deleting, we are talking about deleting even in the "talk page" not in the article, the way of manipulation is just incredible. It´s not only Akerbeltz and IñakiLL, Xabier Armendaritz as well are part of these group. I repeat. The only reason today because there in wiki is basque spanish term is because of the three persons, they think and they manipulate wiki only for their political ideas. Because here in the english wiki is impossible just to say basque instead of basque spanish, they invented this term, but for example in the basque wiki one of the masterworks of Xabier ARmendaritz is delete spanish and let just basque.With this kind of people wiki is dead. I fyo study articles´s " view history" is a moment when everything looks fine and not polemic, but suddenly without any consensous change to basque -spanish and from that moment any revert to the lagal original and consensous form is deleted by Akerbeltz, IñakiLL and Xabier Armendaritz, to know the real Xabier Armandaritz agenda, just take a look to trhe basque wiki when he even delete any spanish origin to let only basque. INCREDIBLE, but this is the people that are "doing" the wiki --Onecontribution (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This message is such a pack of lies, I don't think it deserves any answer. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk)

Perspectivas culturales de España citation

The first edition of this work gives only the year of Elcano's return and doesn't specify Sanlúcar de Barrameda. I'm intrigued that such details has been added in the second edition. William Avery (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Juan Sebastian EL Cano. Spanish or basque spanish

It exist a political manipulation saying basque spanish instead of Spanish, this manipulation is made for Akerbeltz and Iñaki LL. two very very active menbers of Wikipedia, that is main contribution is cahnging all the spanish born in Basqueland to basque spanish and revert any chane that another civilizate people do. They talk about consensus but is vandalism. I even no tried to change to just spanish to not start a cruisade because I saw a lot of contributions of Akerbelts and Iñaki LL and all are impoising their opinion and not listening to nobody. BE ACTIVIST DOES NOT MEAN HAS RIGHT!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onecontribution (talk • contribs) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead mentions his nationality (Spanish) and his ethnicity (Basque) which is accurate and balanced. So I'm afraid it's you who is pushing some agenda. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he is not pushing "some agenda." Any European's nationality is simply his country of origin, to claim that there is some "ethnicity" (whatever that is) which is so separate from his nationality that it has to MODIFY his nationality is simply wrong. If you mention that someone is British, you don't modify it first by saying Northrumbian or Pict, although you may include this in the article, it just is not proper to modify nationality with any divisive ethnic label.98.170.208.3 (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That is so simplistic and ill-informed a view I'm not even going to bother arguing. Go away and do some research, then come back when you've got better data. Stop wasting our time. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, my comment is far from simplistic. What is simplistic is your furious obsession with refusing to call a Spaniard a Spaniard. I don't know what your psychologic hang-up is with this issue. I suggest you unburden the rest of us from your racial neurosis and let my edit stand. It gives the same information without the tooting horns.98.170.208.3 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity is perfectly acceptable additional information, no one is denying his nationality was Spanish. Let me put it another way... by you defition, there is no such thing as a Scot or the Welsh because they're all British. Yet Adam Smith happily calls him a Scot and doesn't even mention the British bit. Care to explain? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that ethnicity is perfectly acceptable additional information, that is why, in my edit, I added his Basque ethnicity immediately following the statement of his nationality. The reason that it is not the same as saying Scot, for example, is that Scotland is a recognized geographical area, at one time independent and recognized as a sovereign territory. In fact, you would not say, in an article about a Scottish person, that he was a "Scottish English" explorer, for example. You might say he was a "Scottish explorer," or you may want to say that he was an "English explorer of Scottish descent." Although the Basques are a recognized ethnic group, they are not now and have never been, throughout history since before medieval times, a recognized sovereign nation. They have been an ethnic group contained within other countries, such as Spain and France. If a person belongs to that ethnicity, and lives in Spain, he is a Spaniard of Basque descent. I know this sounds like a semantic cavil, but it really addresses a profound issue concerning feelings of Spanish national identity and Basque inclusivity in their countries of birth. It has become fashionable in recent times to "celebrate diversity" (whatever that means), often by attempting to identify and segregate various ethnic groups within a society. In Theodore Roosevelt's words, doing that turns a country into a polyglot boarding house, populated by a tangle of squabbling nationalities. (Ok, I think it was TR, and it was words to that effect). Please see if my next edit is more satisfactory.98.170.208.3 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

<sigh> fine, though I doubt this will be the end of it. This kind of thing is *really* making me reconsider my involvement on th English Wikipedia. Let's leave it at that but in parting, you might want to read Kingdom of Navarre before claiming that the Basques have never formed a sovereign nation. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't abandon the English Wikipedia. It's the diversity of opinion that gives Wikipedia its strength. Keep plugging away at it!98.170.208.3 (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no bone with a diversity of opinions but there's just not enough common sense these days and too many really opinionated people - this page and the debate with you by far isn't/wasn't the worst. It just all adds up to Wiki fatigue. There's always the Gaelic wiki for me :) Akerbeltz (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says (I've highlighted in bold letters a word): "Juan Sebastián del Cano, Cano also spelled Elcano (born c. 1476, Guetaria, Vizcaya, Castile [now Spain]—died Aug. 4, 1526, at sea), Basque navigator who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth."

They don't even mention any Spanish nationality (which in that time even didn't exist, strictly speaking). Should we think they are pushing some Basque nationalist agenda? I don't think so. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk)

Onecontribution, that's a really funny thing to say... Xabier and me are as much "the people" as you are. And "shouting" doesn't make your arguments any better. I've also reverted your edits to the IP contributor above, it's not ok to edit other people's comments.

As far as Gipuzkoa goes, please refer to the agreed names debate here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque - we don't use Guipuscoa on the English Wikipedia. Screaming that the French do, by the way, won't change that, this isn't the French Wiki. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Just having a casual look (through the contribution list of Tocacojines). There is no doubt that the adjective "Basque" is sourced in the present state of the article (though it would be worth improving the source - using a tertiary source is not an optimal way of doing). But the noun "ethnicity" is not present in this source, and should be sourced. I have nothing against writing that Elcano is "Basque" but I am quite perplexed in front of this oddly sounding "Basque ethnicity explorer" (and the word "ethnicity" in the infobox). This should be sourced or modified. French Tourist (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, FrenchTourist. We ended up sticking that word in there to appease these permanent crusaders who have kittens at the idea that a Basque could not be a Spaniard or Frenchman at heart really. If you feel like using Xabier's reference to the EB and just lose the "ethnicity" and "Spanish", by all means go for it. Though I suspect you'll find you'reself reverted pretty soon by the i-have-an-opinion-but-no-source-but-I'm-right-anyway brigade. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's funny, I had completely forgotten that I had already been talking on this page (under my previous account name). Here we go again : I have added a source asserting that Elcano was "Basque" ; this source can be read online. I am pretty sure that it is easy to find say five or ten of equal quality, and I am ready to believe that it would be easy to find excellent sources asserting that Elcano is "Spanish" (I am ready to believe, but I would prefer to see them, though). I cannot understand why Bashevis6920 removes an information but does not remove the source -with this way to proceed, the source is now used to source something which is not asserted in this precise book, specifically that Elcano is Spanish. This is not a good way to play with references. I am ready to discuss the matter here, but please don't insert nonsense in the article. Touriste (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Guetaria, Guipúzcoa was part of Castile and Leon in 1476. The Basque Country there was not such as nationality or region. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What is and is not a "nationality" is debatable, but it certainly was an ethnicity. Nothing in the article said that it was a "nationality", as far as I know. Not being a nationality is not a reason for excluding information about a person's ethnic background. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Gloria Totoricagüena asserts that he is Basque in a scholarly book ; Gloria Totoricagüena is head of a department in a US University and has received a number of scholarly awards for her works about Basque culture (source : [2]). If you think the University of Reno is wrong, you could complain to the University of Reno. But your tricky reasonings based on the political map of Europe in 1476 are not to be used in Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia articles are to be built on serious sources, and on such a topic as a XVIth century navigator, on scholarly sources. Touriste (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Name

I want to register my voice as objecting to renaming the explorer de Elcano (or del Cano).

According to Daniel J. Boorstin's book The Discoverers, the correct spelling for this entry is Juan Sebastián del Cano. (1983, First Vintage Books Edition 1985, page 266.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.72.215 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Boorstin was wrong. Elcano used different variations of his name but he never used "del cano" because his name came from the Basque valley of "Elcano". At that time ortography was not standardized as it is today and people signed their names with variations. Elcano was no different and mostly he used "de elcano" but also "elcano", which was the name he inherited from his father. Today we see similar confusion with politician Maria Dolores Cospedal who is sometimes erroneously referred to as "De Cospedal". GS3 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Changes in Juan Sebastian Elcano.

I Can't understand why my changes were reverted. The information was taken from official books written in Spanish and is the official history about this navigator. I took the effort to translate them and providing more accurate information. There are many mistakes and need to correct them although the information posted will not be reliable. Sorry but this is one of many misinformations published in Wikipedia and maybe it is time to check and update it. Pochito (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pochito, and welcome to Wikipedia! I can see you put a lot of effort into the content you added to this article, and I understand how discouraging it might be to have that work erased. I hope I can explain why your changes were reverted, and how you can reintroduce the content in a way that won't be reverted.

For anyone who doesn't want to dig through the history, these are the edits. They were reverted by User:S0091 with the explanation "Unsourced".

I see a few issues with your edits:

1. As S0091 alluded to in his edit summary, there's a sourcing issue. You added a new work under the "References" section, but you added a lot of material without including any inline citations. Technically these are only required for quotations and "material challenged or likely to be challenged", but it's a good idea to use them liberally.
2. Some of the wording doesn't follow an "encyclopedic tone". For example, "There are no great doubts about the birthplace of the famous sailor", "a map that the king of Portugal kept in his treasury, built by Martin de Bohemia, very excellent cosmographer". Some of this might just be odd wording that comes out when translating somewhat literally from Spanish to English?
3. Wikitext formatting. This is the big one for me. Some examples:
   • There are lines that appear intended as headings ("Starting the trip", "Origins"), but they're not formatted as section headings in Wikitext.
   • There's an unsuccessful attempt to format a bulleted list under "Characters of the expedition"
   • Lack of wikilinks (especially the "Origins" section, which has three sizable paragraphs with no wikilinks)

Theoretically, a kindly editor could try to fix all of these issues (except adding inline citations, since they don't necessarily know where you got your information), but I don't blame S0091 for reverting in this case, given the scope of the issues that would need to be fixed.

My suggestion would be to start with a smaller edit and build up incrementally. e.g. take a couple paragraphs of the content you previously tried to add, try to address the issues I mentioned above for those paragraphs, and add them to the article. If there are issues with a smaller change, an editor will be more likely to try to help out in fixing them, rather than reverting. If that change is accepted or reaches a stable state after a few days, try adding a bigger chunk, and so on. I for one would be happy to help out with cleaning up edits (as long as they're reasonably bite-sized).

Again, I appreciate the work you put in on the article, and hope you won't be discouraged from continuing. I've also noticed some factual errors in this particular article, and definitely agree it could use a lot of correction and expansion! Colin M (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Military life

The section about military life comes from some fake references created during the francoism trying to show that Elcano was a military before the circunnavigation. It is difficult to know whether Elcano was in the campaign of Italy, but surely he wasn't in Oran with his own ship, because of his age. There are some references on this: [3], [4]. All the section should be changed to reflect the current view on this affair. -Theklan (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether Elcano was Basque or not

The issue has not been corrected. The moderator of this article is clearly a Basque nationalist, and he is using censorship against pow different to his own. There is no proof he was of "Basque ethnicity", if such thing exists. How do you know his family did not come from other region/nation/state of Spain? His name and surnames are not Basque, they're actually very Castilian, and therefore not of "Basque ethnicity". It is historically inaccurate to state that his nationality was Basque, that was not a nationality, he was Castilian. I think it can be stated that he was born in present-day Basque country, but there are no documents that say he was Basque, or any letter of him writing in euskera or arguing about his national status. Please, Xabier, act coherently with wikipedia guidelines and POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.37.19 (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please, anonymous user, avoid any original research — Elcano is Basque per numerous reliable secondary sources, as referenced. And avoid talking about topics on which you are ignorant — Elcano is a Basque surname, as you will find in any serious list of Basque surnames. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 10:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Elcano was Basque, as was noted also by other members of the expedition. Martín de Ayamonte, in his relation to the Portuguese inquity, clearly said that the captain was Biscayne. Modern sources also state this. Theklan (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: Who has denied he was Basque? Let me remind these people from the expedition (at least what the sources say) said Elcano was Biscayne, which is not the same as being from the "Basque Nationality" (a nationality that has never existed) and looking at the National Geographic page you mentioned, yes indeed they say he was Basque born in the Basque Country, but inside of Spain, they talk about his return to Spain, I will quote National Geographic "Elcano did not suffer from a lack of fame in his country on his return. Europe’s most powerful man, Charles V, the king of Spain and Holy Roman emperor, duly praised and rewarded the captain who had so heroically completed the voyage." they even claim how the expedition was Spanish (of course including people from all parts of Spain, such as Basques or Andalosians, as well as from other nationalities, such as Portuguese) as you can see no one denies he was Spanish, because he was born Castilian and he died Spanish.

Yes, he was also Basque, like an American can be a Californian or like a French can be Corsican or a Italian can be Sardinian. That doesn't remove the fact he was Spanish, which is the desire of the 3 nationalistic Basque users that keep monopolizing that page for some years... I just encourage you to check the Basque Wikipedia to see how there is no mention on the real place he was born (they say it was born in "Euskal Herria" which was a concept that was firstly mentioned by Basque Nationalists in the 19th century) no mention in the lead nor in an important place to the Spanish Empire and even less to Castile, even if he was born Castilian inside the Kingdom of Castile.

I am okay with keeping he was Basque as well in the lead. I think the Nationality tag in the infobox should be deleted, as proposed 2 years ago by other users. Since this is controversial. Like in the Carles Puigdemont given example in the long RfC he had (you can see it in Elcano's talk page) and Puigdemont denies he is Spanish, while there is no historical claim Elcano has ever deniend being Spanish or Castilian since he was Castilian/Spanish, we can say he was also Basque as the sources say Biscayne (which doesn't automatically remove the fact he can also be Spanish/Castilian) so I think it's better to keep it this way. And let's not forget Elcano lost his life while trying to claim a Moluccan island for the Spanish Empire. He gave his life for Spain. That doesn't make him less Basque, but neither doesn't remove the fact he died Spanish and also that he was born in the Crown of Castile. Elcano is even often portrayed as a Spanish hero by official Spanish organizations, even government related. It has been like this for centuries. Like many other Basques, Andalosians, Aragonese, etc... that doesn't remove the fact their state/citizenship was Spain.

Here is the National Geographic official source for Elcano, where you can find most of what I've wrote above: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/this-man-was-actually-first-to-sail-around-the-world

--84.125.64.26 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You have the statement of him being Basque just in the leading sentence. "Juan Sebastián Elcano completed the first known circumnavigation of the globe in September 1522. The Basque navigator led the tattered remains of Magellan's fleet back to Spain after the commander's death in 1521.". Theklan (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the only Wikis that say he was only Basque are the Basque language Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia, which has been modified by the same users that edit the Basque Wiki, in all of the other Wikis no one tries to change the history of Elcano's expeditions or to alter his biography by removing the nationality/citizenship he acquired from the place he was born in and when he died, it's curious how a non-Spanish person (according to Theklan and 2-3 other Basque nationalists editing this Wiki) died giving his life for the Spanish Empire in an expedition he wanted to complete. Kinda contradictory, isn't it? And no one tries to remove the fact he has a Basque background/ethnicity but you try to remove the fact regarding his place of birth and the nationality he really had... --84.125.64.26 (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

People from many nationalities dies in those expeditions. The source of the expedition and the nationality of the sailors are not related at all. On the other hand, you have sources stating that he was Basque, and you are misunderstanding nationality and citizenship. Theklan (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: Why are you replying here when the issue is with the nationality? Check below. Also the accepted version of this page said Spanish and Basque Ethnicity (years ago, by Basque users), something that got completely barren by you and Iñaki LL without any consensus. Also no citizenship misunderstanding here.

True thing is that, there isn't any single source saying Elcano had a "Basque Nationality" and all sources that mention Basque (which is not deleted, as it was his ethnicity) later mention country or nationality as Spanish, which is the accepted way as it's how the history was, we can't change history even if collides with our own political views.

If you want to reach any consensus (after 3 years ignoring the talk page) write below in the Nationality paragraph. Look at the page right now, this is how it should stay. No Basque Nationality as that doesn't even exist (much less 500 years ago) the Basque Ethnicity does exist, applies to Elcano, which was born Castilian and died Spanish so there is literally no objection in this statement, if you have any, go below, as NO ONE is deleting the fact he was also Basque. Heck, most of the important Spanish sailors were Basques and they were proud Spaniards that fought for Spain, just as Elcano did when he died tried to reaching the Moluccas for the Spanish Empire, that's why he has been considered a National Hero in Spain since the 16th Century. No one can't change facts and history dude. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 12 September 2022

typo, shp should be ship below:

was eating the wood of the shp Bluejaguar~enwiki (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! If you find any other error or you think something should be rephrased, proceed, please. The more English I read, the worse I write it. Theklan (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Spanish Royal Academy of History is not a reliable source

The article about Elcano by the Royal Academy of History is not a reliable source. They used to claim that Elcano was born 10 years before the actual date, only because some invented facts didn't fit. Now they have changed the date, but they mantain the "facts". Most important ideas they mantain:

• Elcano was in the conquest of Oran with his own ship: this is false, as the conquest of Oran was a very profitable victory and Elcano or anyone similar is not in the list of captains who received money.
• Elcano was then under the orders of the Great Captain in Italy, but the Great Captain was death before the siege of Oran. And Elcano ws 8 years old when this happened.

I wouldn't take it as the most important piece, as many modern books and research are way better. Theklan (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)