Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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)Reply[reply]

tendentious opening[edit]

The phrase " a Basque explorer serving the Spanish Empire" appears to be trying to make a point by implication about Basques not being Spanish. It seems to be projecting the idea that Elcano, like, Magellan, was a foreigner working for Bold textEmpire of which he was not associated with by birth. I don't want to argue here about position of the Basque country with relation to Spain and France, but it seems to me that tendentious implications of this type 1) do not really belong here because it is about Elcano and 2) are anachronistic in general. Whether or not the Basques living in the current or 16th Century Spanish borders (which are pretty much identical in that area) are essentially Spanish or not is not relevant. They were subjects of the Spanish king. That status is different from that of Magellan or Columbus, or for that matter Cabot with relation to England, Verrazzano with France, and Hudson with Holland. Let's not use Wikipedia articles to strike pathetic blows in favor our pet political causes. mnewmanqc 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase is not anymore but Spain did not exist in 1476 (his birthday) not in 1526 (his death). The name Spain was only used to refer to a state and not the Iberian peninsula only since Philiph II. In fact it is using Spain what looks quite tendentious. Elkano was Guipuscoan and therefore somewhat Castilian maybe (as Guispuscoa was in personal union with Castile), but not Spaniard except in the sense it meant the: Iberian.
Let's not use Wikipedia for political games. --Sugaar 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Basque country did not exist by that time, therefore he is not Basque? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(as Guispuscoa was in personal union with Castile)"

Guipuscoa was never in any personal union with Castille. It was simply anexed by Castille along with the kingdom of Navarra.

"Elcano was Guipuscoan and therefore somewhat Castilian maybe"

Sorry, you dont need to add so many "maybes" and "somewhats", he was Castillian, period. Guipuscoa was not a crow, nor a kingdom nor anything. It was simply a part of Castille along with the rest land we currently know as Basque country. It is nonsensical to say that Elcano was not Spanish because Spain did not exist then as political entity and at the next line to claim that Elcano was Guipuscoan or basque when Guipuscoa or the Basque country has not been political entities until few years ago. So the text should read: "Elcano was a Castillian explorer" in any case.

It's just a kind of geographical precision, just to be more precise. DocteurCosmos (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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"[1], 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)Reply[reply]


  1. ^


Magellan´s mission was to find a route to the Spice Islands sailing westwards. Elcano was who truly decided to circumnavigate the world.

Elcano's nationality and service[edit]

There's been a lot of modifications the last couple of days about whether Elcano was doing things for Spain or Castille, and whether he was Spanish, Castillian or Basque.

Sugaar, you've based your description of work for Castille because Spain did not exist officially yet as a single Kingdom. Yet, what is now Spain was under the rule of a same person, Carlos I, who is now considered as the first King of Spain (for example he is the first person to be buried in El Escorial with Felipe II and all the kings after him; remember that one thing is the practical reality and another the peace of paper certifying it, for example Italy, the USA and the UK were already military allies with common defence compromise before NATO created as such). This is accepted both in Spain and internationally.

You say Elcano was Basque because of such ethnicity to exist at that time. The Spanish one as well, and he is considered as such. The same applies for example to Juana I, Picasso or Dali (they are not described as exclusively Castillian, Andalucian or Catalan instead of Spaniards), I therefore think that it is much more correct to define him as a "Spaniard from the Basque Country" and not exclusively as "Basque navigator".

I therefore suggest to do something of the following structure: describe Elcano as "Spaniard from the Basque Country", and he "explored, etc, for Spain and Carlos V, king of Spain, at that time still called Castille" Escorial82 (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. The Spanish ethnicity wasn't defined at that time, not more than the British one for instance. There was no Spanish state either, because Charles V was the first joint monarch of Castile and Aragon and he was also king of many other realms. Spain was then a mere geographical term that meant the Iberian peninsula.
The first monarch to style himself as "King of Spain" was Philip II, AFAIK, upon his ascension to the Portuguese throne. With that personal union, Philip II became indeed King of Spain, that is: of the Iberian peninsula.
After Portugal broke apart, the name remained, even if the different realms were under different laws and jurisditions until the Bourbon dynasty, that supressed most of them. It could be discussed indeed if under the Habsburgs there was a state named "Spain", as each realm had its own law, tribunals and government, but that's not a debate I want to get into. What I say and, is quite clear, is that before Philip II, there was no King of Spain, and therefore no Kingdom of Spain even if loosely speaking.
Furthermore: non-Castilian subjects of the Habsburgs were in principle not allowed to participate in the colonial enterprises of the Kingdom of Castile. That's a reason why there are so few people of Catalan or Aragonese origin in the colonial history of Latin-America. Southern Basques instead, as subjects of the King of Castile, "Castilians" if you wish, were allowed an often participated in such adventures. Andalusia instead was fully part of Castile (or Castile-Leon), as much as Valladolid, and even participated in the Comuneros revolt (that affected only Castile). The Southern Basque provinces were part of the Kingdom of Castile but unlike the rest of the realm, they enjoyed special autonomy based in the Navarrese right, were off the Castilian customs area and did not have to provide soldiers except for the defense of their own provincial territory.
So any Southern Basque living then was a Castilian with special status... but Spanish (Spaniard is possibly despective, mind you) only in the geographical sense of "Iberian" - fully comparable, mutatis mutandi, to the concept of "British" before the act of union.
You can't say that because some today consider Charles V ("Charles I" in Castile and Aragon only, in Navarre he would be "Charles V" as well) "the first king of Spain" (others consider that to be Ferdinand of Aragon, for instance but it's as well a subjective appreciation), Spain existed then. As you surely know, the domains of Charles were immense and nobody thinks of Austria or Milan as part of "Spain". In any cae, I challenge you (in friendly terms naturally) to provide any historical documentation that justifies the use of the term "King of Spain" or "Kingdom of Spain" as early as the rule of Charles V.
You won't be able, I assure you, as no matter what some want to believe, the first monarch ever to use the term "King of Spain" was Philip II upon the incorporation of Portugal to his domains. --Sugaar (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carlos was Carlos V of the Holy Roman Empire and Carlos I of Spain. King of Spain, as Carlos I, from 1516 to 1556, and of the Holy Roman Empire from 1519; he was the two things, describing himself as such, and considered as such by Phillip II and the successors (eg read it in Encyclopaedia Britannica) Escorial82 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some more examples of my previous comment: Acts of the court, Coins, Many more can be seen in Spanish Wikipedia: De Hispania a España Escorial82 (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably the numbering custom is more recent than Charles V and, as far as I can read in those acts, he's never adressed with any ordinal after his name. He was indeed the first monerch of that name in both Castile and Aragon but he was also known first and foremost as Emperor, his highest dignity and the one he tried to enforce in the many wars he was involved in.
I can't read in those acts (acts of the Cortes of Castile, only and exclussively - previous Cortes in Aragon and Catalonia are mentioned as something apart) any reference to Carlos as "King of Spain", instead the plural form "Reynos" (kingdoms) is used once and again. Certain Bishop does use the term "España" (Spain) but alongside of Italy and Germany, which weren't either unified states but geographical regions (with all the personality you wish). The comparison wit Italy is very clear.
The coin is indeed interesting but notice please that "Hispaniarum" is plural, meaning "of the Spains" or, as we would say in modern language, "of the Iberias", just as nearby "Indiarum" means "of the Indies" . The term "Hispaniarum" had been used before by monarchs of Leon and, in one case, Navarre. In none of these cases meant anything but that they power was exerted or wanted to be exerted overe several Iberian realms. Close but not quite.
In regard to this coin notice that the coat of arms is that of Castile-Leon.
As I said before, the first monarch of Castile and Aragon to style himself "King of Spain", meaning initially King of all Iberia, was Philip II, who was also monarch of Portugal. After Portugal left the union, the name stuck, even if the several separate administrations remained in place for some time yet.
The process of constituion of Spain as state and nationality was not as swift as you seem to think. It was a sometimes punctuated, sometimes gradual evolution. But in this process, Philip II was the first monarch who used the title that would remain and was also the first monarch that ruled over all what is now Spain and for who that region was the core of his empire. This wasn't the case with Charles, whose policy was basically of Imperial nature and whose empire was formed by many realms, one of them, very important, being Castile. But none bearing the name of "Spain".

--Sugaar (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the Spanish Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a valid source for itself. The few cases mentioned there are not convincing on first sight anyhow. It seems mostly an opinion held by the Spanish scholars, who, sadly, often display a strong nationalist bias. --Sugaar (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that Spanish Wikipedia cannot be used as a source itself. If I put it is so that you can see all the other references they mention; I link you here to another one, Larousse. This is another high-reputation encyclopaedia that describes him as Spanish. You mentioned previously that even if the Basque Country was not a country Elcano was of Basque ethnicity. Were some people from the area ever considered as Basque and not Spanish (ethnicity/cultural union considered as such since Fernando and Isabel) from the end of the "Reconquista" until Sabino Arana? I therefore insist that Elcano was a Spanish navigator from the Basque Country. Escorial82 (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no concept of Spanish ethnicity then... it would be something like "Balcanic ethnicity" (the Balcans are a geographic region but people there belong to many different ethnicities) or "Scandinavian ethnicity" or "Indochinan ethnicity". Spain was just a geographic denominator to refer to what we call now Iberian peninsula. People spoke many different languages, were under different administrations (some of them just united in person under Ferdinand and his grandson, the Emperor) but no institution that can be claimed as "Spain".
Naturally people tend to see the past with modern cathegories and it's easy to call these people "Spanish", as it's used for Trajan or Abd-ar-Rahman III as well occasionally. In some cases this perception is enhanced by nationalist bias but for all legal purposes in his time Elcano was Castilian and Guipuzcoan (as the "fuero" gave him different rights and obligations than the average Castilian, like the status of gentry, "hidalgo", in all Castilian lands).
In my opinion, claiming Elcano as "Spanish" (ethnically or legally) is a political statement that cannot be upheld against the historical facts: un his time there was no "Spain" yet, neither ethnical nor legal, just an array of "Spanish" (Iberian) realms, some of which were ruled by the same monarch, who also ruled many other lands throughout Europe.
There is not even a single serious indication that he ever named himself "King of Spain", something that only his son Philip would do. --Sugaar (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I corrected the nationality explaining it in precise terms (saying that its how he's now considered, and who was Charles I). I put the needed references Escorial82 (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent) Sorry. No way. If you want to make a political statement, you can start by trying to claim Trajan as "Spanish" (sarcasm intended). The fact is that there was no state named "Spain" and that your "is considerd" phrase is idelogical and refers only to those with a Spanish naionalist bias. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and not a board for political statements. --Sugaar (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you describe that as a political statement? Something that is worldwide recognised? I would rather say the opposite; what is ideological / political is that some Basque nationalists are "ashamed" that Elcano was a successful Spanish explorer (NB: I'm Basque). Indeed Wikipedia is for informing, but not as a few people want but rather as it is worldwide done (I quoted other prestigious encyclopaedias as sources). I recommend you to read around on how him and others are mentioned, because if applying your principles it is, for example, more suitable to describe Simon Bolivar or Sabino Arana as Spanish (I consider neither as such) Escorial82 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not discussing Arana's citizenship, I am discussing Elcano's. And he was Castilian. There was no Spain yet. When you demonstrate that Spain existed in his lifetime (what is impossible to do), then you will be right. In the meantime, please avoid these kind of edit wars that go nowhere. --Sugaar 09:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, btw, an encyclopedy can hardly be a source for another encyclopedy, much less when the entry is just 2 lines long. Another famous encyclopedia [2] opts for not discussing his nationality (a concet probably not existent then) and just mentions his birthplace:

Célebre navegante, el primero que dio la vuelta al mundo, nacido en Getaria (Gipuzkoa) en 1487 y muerto en el Pacífico en 1526.

(Translation: Famous sailor, the first one who circunnavigated the world, born in Getaria (Gipuzkoa) in 1487 and born in the Pacific Ocean in 1526). --Sugaar 09:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just check Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, please. There is no "King of Spain" among his many titles. He was monarch of many different states, one of which was Castile, to which Gipuzkoa belonged then. --Sugaar 09:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three independent things: You mention me the Wikipedia article on Charles V. It does mention that he ruled Spain as Charles I; the way I had written it states the two things, i.e. that he ruled Spain but at that time it was not a single kingdom.
This other encyclopaedia you link me to says as well how Magellan wanted to leave and then return to "Spain". With respect to Spain as a culture/ethnia it did exist, as shows it those references I mentioned previously when you talked about Basque ethnicity (Charles I was called Spanish by the courts). The British and Larousse encyclopaedia on-line are indeed only two lines. I quoted them because I checked it manually on the paper version.
Before this discussion started the article stated that Elcano was Spanish, according to Wikipedia polemic things should be kept as they were before the discussion, i.e. until this ends it should change back to him being Spanish, maybe afterwards it will change to how you wish. Escorial82 11:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant the list of states of which he was ruler. The intro paragraph is changing all the time (another pathetic edit war). But the facts are well clear in the list of crowns he held:

  • Crown of Burgundy: Duke of Burgundy (Franche-Comté) and associated realms of the Low Countries
  • Crown of Aragon: King of Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, Naples, Sicily, Count of Barcelona...
  • Crown of Castile: King of Castile and León (including overseas colonies, Western Basque provinces and High Navarre - this latter is wrongly placed in the list as part of the Aragonese crown)
  • Crown of Austria: Archduke of Austria, etc.
  • Holy Roman Emperor (elect) - and associated titles: King of Germany, Italy, etc.

The term Spain is used now, we know, in anachronistic contexts sometimes. Yet, it was then a geographical term meaning the Iberian peninsula (see: Hispania). We have to adhere to the facts and the fact is that no realm with that name existed then. It's also highly dubious that there was a clear national/ethnic feeling among the different Iberian ("Spanish") populations, after all the Spanish ethnicity is built on the Castilian one and, as we can see in the Comuneros Revolt, for instance, the Castilian ethnic/national indentity was clear then.

Anyhow, I think the issue could easily be solved by adding something like "modernly he is claimed as 'Spanish' by some authors". True that the same can be said of Trajan, Hannibal or Benjamin of Tudela but I guess it's the best way to solve this endless dispute between the historical facts (Kingdom of Castile) and the modern Spanish nationalist perception (tending to imply that Spain existed somehow since at least the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand, what is very very questionable: a romantic, politically charged, idea in fact). --Sugaar 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you to put it this way. It mentions how he is "currently considered", and clearly states that defining Charles I as King of Spain is done now-a-days, at the time of Elcano he was King of Castile. I think that like this it says the two things each of us defends, and it puts it clear to someone who doesn't know well Spanish geography (i.e. that Castile became afterwards part of Spain).
Juan Sebastián Elcano (Getaria (Guipuscoa, Spain), 1476Pacific Ocean, August 4 1526) is currently considered as a Basque and/or Spanish navigator [1][2] born in the Basque Country, Castile (now part of Spain) and a naval commander subject of Charles I (at that time Spain was still divided in some kingdoms, all with Charles I as monarch; with respect to Elcano he was officially King of Castile, he is now also considered as King of Spain).

Escorial82 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It makes no sense at all, in the article on Elcano, all this stuff about the Kingdoms of Spain in the XVI Century and this rather cumbersome wording on Charles I as King of Spain or not exactly. Please, put everything in the articles on Kingdom of Castile, Crown of Castile, History of Spain, Charles V, and so on.

Therefore, let's make the introductory paragraph on Elcano as simple and informative as possible. There are many other areas where the article should be improved.

So getting three times the term "Spain"/"Spanish" in the introductory paragraph is what you understand as "simple and informative". I've removed one of them though I believe that a single mention to Castile now being part of Spain is more than enough, just that I don't know how to do it without leaving the paragraph too confuse.
Factuality in an encyclopedia that pretends to be serious is not cumbersome but a must. Elcano was not born in Spain nor was subject of any state of that name. At most he is considered as such by some modern people. --Sugaar (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall agree with what you say, and also simple. In the article on Castile's historical region it says its current location in Spain, so it can be removed there. I'll rather keep the "Basque Spanish" statement (since as previously seen both cultures already existed by then and that keeps the article without the polemic of the long discussion) Escorial82 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We really don't agree. You are POV-pushing your ideology without any evidence. I would not use the term "Spain" at all because it's not a fact, at most, as non-factual opinion, in a separate sentences specifically refering to some authors (sourced with historians' references, no dictionaries, please) claiming him as Spanish.
I also strongly suggest that you leave it the way it is until we can reach a consensus (read the policies please) otherwise we are edit-warrying and that's awful. --Sugaar (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree to what you say in this previous paragraph. But one important thing: this discussion began when the mention of him as Spanish was removed (i.e. the previous consensus was Spanish navigator, and not Basque navigator. I suggest you to leave it in this intermediate status until we do find an agreement. Escorial82 (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree for Sugaar. Escorial82 is #1 POV person of wiki.--La voz de su amo (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent)There was no "previous consensus". There was just a "previous edition" of the article. The only place where consensus can arise is in this talk page. --Sugaar (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A section is defined as having consensus when it is not modified for a long time. The introduction of him a Spanish navigator had not changed for almost 2 months (until I deleted by mistake the link you had put to the Japanese Wikipedia on the 22nd of November), i.e. a consensus. Since you don't seem to agree with the intermediate thing I wrote 5 days ago I'll return it to the text it was on the 25th of September. And later in the afternoon, when I'll have a bit more of time, I'll write you about a key thing: how is Elcano considered now. Escorial82 (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is Elcano currently considered generally all around the world? In most of the publications we've mentioned, or for example in the same article of 14 out of 16 other Wikipedias (including the one in Basque), Elcano is mentioned as a Spanish (or Basque Spanish) navigator. This applies as well to Charles I, he is currently and officially considered as Charles I of Spain (1). So, don't you agree that at least a mention of him being considered Spanish should be included? Escorial82 (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Consensus has nothing to do with stability of the article or section. Consensus means agreement and must be done here: in the talk page. A gross error that has not been reviewed is not any consensus and in any case, it remains being an error that must be fixed. A consensus of one is not any consensus.
Elcano is constantly and universally considered Elcano, logically. Do you think people stops to wonder the nationality of Amerigo Vespucci or Trajan? It's just a circumstantial note unless you are fanatic nationalist who bases his/her own identity on what other people (not you) have done. 16 other Wikipedias, probably based in this one mean nothing.
There is one clear fact here: Spain did not exist in the time of Charles V and therefore in Elcano's life. Can you counter this? No, you cannot. So stop being disruptive, please. --Sugaar (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is extremely questionable your assertion that 'Spain did not exist in the time of Charles V', but we shouldn't waste time on that discussion. The current Basque provinces were incorporated under the Crown of Castile in 1179, when Alfonso VIII and Sancho VII of Navarre signed the agreement defining the boundaries between their two kingdoms. Therefore, I will change the nationality to Castilian. The three Basque provinces even kept their separate identities until the 19th century, so in the dubious case that Elcano did not consider himself Castilian or Spanish, he would have called himself Guipuzcoan and not Basque. If anyone can provide a reference where they talk about the 'Basque nationality' before or during Elcano's lifespan, I will be ready to accept this, but until then, we should strive to keep Wikipedia clean of anachronisms.Dukeofalba (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)JohannReply[reply]
That the Basques were designated by Viscaino, Guipuzcuano (sometimes the Navarrese, but these ones mainly by Navarrese, Basques or not) according to its origin, seems to me a fact. We can use Portuguese, Italian, etc. sources. But they were also called Basques or Vizcainos / Biscaynes etc. as whole sometimes - and they were a nationality (here in the most ethnic sense), or in some European chronicles, whether in the Lusíadas in Portugal, some chronicles or in another international chronicle. But also as Castilians, if framed in a larger group (and not individually), and within a collective situation or rivalry with another country (see Portuguese chronicles on Moluccas and the Pacific as an example). They maintained their foros, but also integrated (in this multiple traditional ancien regime federation of origins) into a formal Castilian "naturality" - Cartas de naturaleza for example, passed on to foreigners, by which one had the rights and duties as a subject of the King as Castilian natural or of the Crown of Castile, Aragonese, Navarrese, Portuguese etc.. Cartas de naturaleza passed to be made Iberian (Spanish), this was in fact impossible) Really as Spain (Iberia then) - a Geography, which included Portugal, not nation, not state - as it did not exist, evidently in the legal plane and in the traditional equivalent (then) to the modern legal naturalness and nationality of state (legal matters), did not exist also in the ethnic sense. The current Spain in Charless V did not exist, only anachronistically existed (current "fantasy" device, but commonly accepted to simplify historiography) and it is, by that way, still, very questionable, I agree there (in fact the anachronistic form is used and accepted in texts without problem), but legal, geographical, at the time - it is a fact - it did not exist. Spain was the Iberian Peninsula, for its peoples, and for all the other Europeans. --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elcano was a Castillian explorer, of Basque origin. At his time, he'd be called Vizcaino (which was usually used to refer to all the basques) or Guipuzcuano by other fellow castillians. He'd be recognized as Castillian or Spaniard by other europeans. However, this article should not link the Basque Country (greater region) article, as it is mainly a modern geographical concept with a nationalist origin, political definitely. Instead, as we mention basque as ethnicity, we should link the article for the Basque people, Basques. Nachx ( talk Cmbox move.png contr.) 15:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elcano's current consideration[edit]

How is Elcano currently considered by a majority of people? Independently for our discussion about the situation on that time (we could keep it for ages), Elcano is considered as Spanish by most of publications and institutions, as well as Charles V is considered King of Spain (his article explains it). Remember one very important thing: Wikipedia demands that it should have what is considered by most people, and not the one of a reduced number of ones (eventually to mention it, but not to state it as the truth). Again, something that says both things should be in the article. Escorial82 (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sugaar should be ashamed by his open censorship. So he was not Spanish because there was not a "unified" Spain, but there was not either a Basque country, and he just puts him in the "Basque people". Most probably, Elcano thought of himself as a Castilian, to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Île Amsterdam[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 10:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 03:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Facts not mentioned.[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Juan Sebastian EL Cano. Spanish or basque spanish[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 : [3]). 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)Reply[reply]

Onecontribution user's case against three contributors[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Perspectivas culturales de España citation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Whether Elcano was Basque or not[edit]

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 (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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.[1][2] Modern sources also state this.[3][4][5] Theklan (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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:

-- (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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... -- (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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. -- (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "Testimonio de Martín de Ayamonte". primeravueltalmundo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-09-07.
  2. ^ Santamaría Urtiaga, Enrique (2022). La vuelta de Elkano. El molesto triunfo de la gente corriente (in Spanish). Donostia: Eusko Ikaskuntza. ISBN 9788484193012.
  3. ^ "Juan Sebastián Elcano, el vasco que dio la vuelta a la historia". El Correo (in Spanish). 2022-09-01. Retrieved 2022-09-08.
  4. ^ "Magellan got the credit, but this man was first to sail around the world". History. 2022-08-31. Retrieved 2022-09-08.
  5. ^ Woodworth, Paddy (2008). The Basque Country : a Cultural History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-804394-2. OCLC 727949806.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juan Sebastián Elcano. 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:

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes in Juan Sebastian Elcano.[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]


User:Iñaki LL, please explain how "Basque" was the nationality of a person born in the Kingdom of Castile which, during his lifetime, became part of the Kingdom of Spain. Largoplazo (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope I do not have to come over and over again about the same thing all the time. Juan Sebastian Elcano was born in Gipuzkoa (there is a 16-th century painting of San Sebastián that calls it a "kingdom"), that is the polity where he belonged. The Crown of Castile is not the Kingdom of Castile. England is not Scotland, and Gipuzkoa or any other Basque district is not Castile. Please have this idea clear.
This is the moment when there starts to be among the elites of the crown an idea to turn effectively all the kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula into a single polity with Castile as an hegemonic power over all the others. Do nations exist before the 19th century? Obviously so. Juan Sebastian Elcano is called "of the Cantabrian nation" by Esteban de Garibay and no one would suggest otherwise, cause that was common knowledge. Cantabrian, an exonym, during this period is the same as Biscayne, i.e. Basque. The Basques call themselves just euskaldunak. Nation is not state, as it started to be called in the 19th century.
Spain did not exist as a nation proper and least of all "the Spanish" until centuries later. You may call it Spain or Spanish Empire or whatever is convenient for the reader to understand, or politically correct, or commercially interesting. Now that does not stick to the reality on the ground. As Antonio Alcalá Galiano put it (1830s): "(...) we need to have among our main goals to turn the Spanish nation into a nation, since it is not now, and it has not been so to date". Iñaki LL (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked above and don't see that you've been over this before. I see exactly one discussion about whether Elcano was Basque, which is a different question from whether Basque qualifies as a nationality. If you've discussed this more generally elsewhere, well, I wouldn't know that, would I? The attitude behind your first sentence is inappropriate.
That a painting has a title isn't evidence of anything, so if that's your leading argument that it was a kingdom, then that was a pointless direction to go in to make your case. I did my own searches for "kingdom of gipuzkoa" and "kingdom of guipuzcoa" and "reino de guipuzcoa" and "reino de gipuzkoa"—and there's almost nothing, which by itself suggests that an actual historical kingdom of Gipuzkoa. What little there is points momentarily in the other direction: Isabel issued a proclamation titled "Reino de Guipúzcoa".[4]. However, if I'm reading that source correctly (despite my user name, not chosen with any consideration other than that it was a phrase I'd recently learned at the time I chose it, my Spanish is mediocre), it suggests that the designation meant almost nothing. I'm looking at [5] which seems to agree. (Given the sequence of the events listed, I think it's fair to assume that 15th century was meant instead of 14th century.) So now I'm back to "Really?" and a general understanding that the sovereignty of the people there over their own lives was substantially lower than "kingdom" makes it sound. Largoplazo (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, I have gone through a long trail of discussions here or other with like matters, especially with ghostly or banned editors or IPs, which does not happen to be your case, for which I am glad. My case citing "the kingdom" was not to state that Gipuzkoa was a kingdom, but that it was a polity of its own with regulated relations to the Crown of Castile. No one, I mean no one, in the Basque districts would call themselves or be classified as "Castilians" outside them, that was an inherent contradiction to the term, an oxymoron.
Nationality was talked on WP:BIO guidelines, centred on Carles Puigdemont, but even then it was about a present-day personality. Now we are talking about the 16th century, when citizenship does not even exist, they are subjects of the king/queen, and their nationality, yes it did exist, was not associated to a state, but to the people (Saxons, Mohicans, or whatever). You may want, for one, to call Saladin "a Turk" or "an Abbasid" based on the place he was born and the present-day state affiliation of many Kurds or the place he was born, but as you may agree you are only suiting other present-day urges, either political, or commercial, or whatever it is, right on the opposite side of accuracy.
The most accurate may be to follow what nationality was back then (up to the mid-19th century), and hence a Basque (from the semi-autonomous polity of Gipuzkoa), subject of the Crown of Castile. Another way to settle the thing could be following Francis Drake and removing nationality altogether from the infobox if it is going to give a bit of peace. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. I do see it's complicated. I appreciate knowing that the topic has been well covered and I see how it ended up where it has. I have no reason to contest the status quo. Largoplazo (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi User:Iñaki LL, I believe it is better to avoid including the section of nationality in the infobox, because it is problematic as you acknowledge. I do not think everybody agrees he was Basque (as a form of nationality) nor Spanish (because of the reasons you mention here). I would let the lead sentence of the article as it is, but would delete the "nationality" mention in the box info. Also, I do not desire to sound rude to you, quite on the contrary, but as far as I know your claim that "No one, I mean no one, in the Basque districts would call themselves or be classified as Castilians" is not supported by any reference. I am open to change my opinion if you share some references pointing out the contrary. Could you provide any references to support your claim that no Basque ever considered himself a Castilian during the era of the Kingdom of Castile?
But, on point, if you agree that the "nationality" mention of the infobox is problematic/debatable, could you delete it?James343e (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are coming again and again to the same discussion. Nationality is not citizenship, but as the term is disputed it would be a good point to just exclude it from the infobox. Per the lead sentence, there are plenty of sources, both modern and historical, to claim that he was Basque. I wouldn't use the sentence "was a Spanish navigator, ship-owner and explorer with Basque ethnicity from Getaria, Spain", and I would suggest this one, as I think is more NPOV: "was a Basque navigator, ship-owner and explorer born in Getaria, Kingdom of Castille". I think the idea is more compact and there are no discussions about any of the items in the sentence. Theklan (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • About the nationality thing I agree to keep it deleted. About the lead I don't, because this page had the actual lead for years until a WIKIPEDIA:SPA account broke it less than 2 weeks ago. The stable version of this page was broken by a SPA account that made 17 edits in a row for the first and last time in this article and in Wikipedia in overall.
  • It's "curious" that no user "cough, cough" (the ones that always patrol this page to delete most things that aren't edited by themselves) didn't take any action over these edits of this account.
  • Mpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the account that disrupted this page 2 weeks ago.
  • Here you have the last stable version before this SPA done the 17 edits in a row
  • Here you have the edit after the last edit of this SPA account
  • Notice how he changed the page (especially the controversial lead) without any kind of consensus and he didn't get reverted... it's pressumed to assume good faith, but since some users instantly remove any edit adding something that's mentioned in the sources (Spain/Spanish) but they didn't make any single undo/revert to the edits of this user who literally erased anything that wasn't Basque from the lead and contributed to make the Verbatim copy from the Basque Wikipedia.
  • @Theklan: You did lots of edits when the intro said "Juan Sebastián Elcano was a Castilian navigator of Basque origin" for several months, but now you say that lead is actually wrong just because a SPA account changed it the past 26th of August, not even 2 weeks ago?
  • This is a random edit you've made (Theklan or Iñaki LL) to prove how you had no problems with the lead, until few days ago, when me or other users tried to return to the stable version of this page, actually to improve it
  • Since you really want to include Basque in the lead it's good if we say origin, I even took a step beyond and I said ethnicity! But without removing the fact he was Spanish and he was born in Castilla. Also, since you added the Elkano writing in modern Basque, what's the problem with leaving Getaria, Spain as it's where it belongs for centuries? When Elcano was born it was the Crown of Castile, but that kingdom doesn't exist anymore. It's like saying people born in the Spanish republic or the dictatorship were born in "The 2nd Spanish Republic" or "Francoist Spain" instead of just saying plain Spain. If the modern Basque thing is ok for you, why not also the modern Spain thing? Please, let's try to keep Wikipedia:NPOV. Thanks! (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There isn't such thing as "stable version". Also, I have changed the overall article, so no need to take any singular diff to prove that I have been adding other content. Theklan (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was just an example. I can post 50 more.
The fact is, you didn't take any action in the WP:SPA account from above (all of his historical Wiki edits are 17 in total, all being in this page, while you or the other 2 "patrollers" took no action since his edits are very pro-Basque) yes there was a stable lead, and now it seems you want to modify it after the edits of the SPA account and not after the previous aspect the page had... mmmh. And you still break the WP:NPA rule by calling me a SPA account (even if I've engaged myself in several articles starting from late 2021) but you don't say anything about that real SPA account from above.
The lack of neutrality is so big here it hurts. Now we allow SPA accounts if they make edits we like? Come on. (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't need to judge the way I add content to an article. I made the article 5x larger and, then, I went to other formal things, like the lead, the infobox or the categorization. Again, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Theklan (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I can be helpful, it is important for editors to be aware of prior consensus on this topic in general. There was a lengthy RfC at:

It would be useful to read through the discussions as well as the conclusions there. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 years and a half later and still no reply from Iñaki LL besides his constant tryout to monopolize this article (together with 2-3 more ultra nationalistic Basques, that have even written in the Basque Wiki that Elcano was born in "Euskal Herria" and not in Castille, the first being a concept invented by Sabino Arana in the 19th century) can an admin take action in this? This is really sick. They try to change the history about Juan Sebastián Elcano, they even try to change his family name with the "basque form elkano" just because some Basque nationalistic site says that... for real?

In the 15th and 16th century there was nothing related to any form of the modern Basque nationalism that claims Elcano had Basque nationality, the "greater basque region" didn't even exist (it was part of the Crown of Castile and later Spain) can you provide any factual, historical or encyclopaedic source proving he had the "Basque Nationality" or that he rejected being Spanish/Castilian?? The Basque nationality doesn't even exist in 2022 unless on nationalist propaganda. Elcano wasn't even Navarrese (which is not the same as Basque) but Castilian, as Guetaría was part of the Greater Castile Crown.

Was Averroes Spanish because he was born in a place that's Spain nowadays? Was Julius Caesar Italian just because he was born in a place that's Italy nowadays? Without even counting the fact that Guetaria is in Spain and Gupizkoa didn't even exist in the 15th century but let's ignore that. But Basque for real?? It makes no sense. Can someone call an admin for help? It's really sick to see 3 users monopolizing this page just because of their political ideas, just check the Basque Wikipedia to prove what I've wrote above... Also for the last example, Puigdemont declared himself Catalonian and not Spanish, did Elcano ever declared himself Basque and not Castilian or Spanish? Let me remind you the Spanish Empire existed already when Elcano died. So "the concept of Spain didn't start until the 18th century" argument anyways overlaps the Basque nationalist movement that started in the late 19th century, now Iñaki, Theklan or the other one, are you able to debate and to prove factual arguments like you've been required for years? The time of your dominance in this Wiki page has ended, you can't change someone's biography to stick it to your own political views. History is history and Wikipedia must remain neutral. Funny enough the Basque Wiki says he was born in a region that didn't exist until 4 centuries after Elcano's birth date, and the same users doing that in that wiki, have been doing this in the English Wiki for years! -- (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:
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... -- (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Theklan: Anything to add? Go for it here. -- (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, calm down. Then, read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Edit warring and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Follow the guidelines for the article. Sources are given for every claim. I'm not going to discuss the same thing for ages. Have a good day. Theklan (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was cited here by the IP above with a self-evident record of contributions to the WP, and very eager to add a combination of ideas in the wall above (WP:TEXTWALL). I have lost long hours discussing the subject here, and I am not willing to repeat back again the same points, just because a single-claim IP editor (WP:SPA) lands noisy in the WP (comes back?), with all sorts of behavioural irregularities and accusations as noted above by Theklan, including edit summaries (Edit summary) and LOUD UPPER CASE.
As it happens, it is now the 500th anniversary of the circumnavigation, and it looks like someone found he should serve some outside purpose in this opportunity. We are here to discuss in a collaborative environment the contents of the WP, for which I refer back to the link above on biography ledes related to historic nations and citizenship, a well worth thought on the matter. Iñaki LL (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your 2018 RfC (which doesn’t apply to this article and a RfC is not a WikiRule) literally says we have to use what the most important sources say, the fact that you and Theklan search for secondary or less important sources to make a point where Elcano is not firstly or just mentioned as Spanish says it all. I’m ok with leaving he was of Basque Ethnicity/Origin (since you want to shoehorn this in the article.
But it’s “curious” how a WP:SPA account came to change the entire lead and you didn’t do any single revert (before it said Elcano was a Spanish or Castilian navigator of Basque origin) it said that for years before a SPA account with all of his edits on Wikipedia being on the same day and in this page, changed to “Elcano was a Basque navigator” surprise that you being the N°1 patroller of this page (you revert anyone that dares to change a word in the lead) you didn’t delete nor revert such edits from that SPA account. Of course, because his edits are ok with your pro-Basque Nationalistic POV. Well, the admins see the actual lead is ok (it’s literally what the sources say and it’s mentioned Elcano was of Basque origin) before it said Castilian instead of Spanish but the actual lead has been in this page for years before the SPA account changed it to just Basque, which is not supported by any legit source except for that .eus source which is a pro-Basque site. Even the National Geographic source says he was Spanish. And if we use the most valuable sites regarding history/biography most of them don’t even mention Basque yet I am ok with leaving his Basque origins on the lead. (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Iñaki LL: and @Theklan: a brand new BBC source that directly starts with... "In the Nao Victoria ship, the captain of the expedition was the Spaniard Juan Sebastián Elcano" so a new source for the record, yet we will still keep Basque ethnicity for courtesy as other sources mention his origins (not any single source says "Basque Nationality") and I see we agree to remove the nationality tag from the infobox if that's a problem.
Here is the source posted yesterday:
We can find dozens of the most valuable and reliable newspapers/pages/encyclopedias saying Elcano was Spanish alone. But as an act of courtesy to prove my intention is just to be neutral and to keep what the sources say, we will also keep his Basque ethnicity/origins in the article. Ah, the Real Academia de la Historia official site also mentions Elkano as a modern Basque name (that's why I have never deleted it) so that is good as well. Navarran94 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are in an ANI for your personal attacks/breach of AGF in this and other pages against two veteran editors and your behavioural issues, including counterproductive interaction with other editors and textwall. Meanwhile, I refer your back to the Incident and the discussion on biographical content two years ago that settled the issue. Please refrain from posting anything here until the Incident is finalized. Iñaki LL (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You didn't provide any single proof of any personal attack, you keep repeating false accusations against me just to get me banned while you have personally attacked me even in the ANI. I hope your false claims will be punished by an admin. Without counting your AGF breach and your constant behavioral issues. I don't know why do you think you have more rights for being an older user in Wikipedia.
  • That discussion on biographical content doesn't apply on this article, I won't repeat 3 times what I've said twice, the fact you didn't answer to someone asking you something in May 2020 proves the fact the only purpose you have on this page.
  • You have been recalled by several users, this page has to keep WP:NEUTRALITY the fact that you didn't took actions in the edits from a WP:SPA account but you revert almost everyone else proves my point and what other users have said.
  • Will you ever end the personal accusations, attacks, ban tryouts and etcetera, to stick to this talk to solve the content dispute that has to be solved here as pointed by an admin in the ANI created by Theklan?
  • You write texts that aren't backed up by sources. Yet you revert when users write text that's inside the sources. Can you explain your behavior instead of directly going to request bans just because someone pointed your lack of WP:NPOV?
Navarran94 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the reference you are adding to deny that he is Basque:
  • "Lo único que —se puede asegurar es que era un buen marino y vasco de una pieza." (The only think we can affirm is that he was a good sailr and fully Basque)
  • "Elcano hablaba indudablemente vasco, que era su lengua materna, y había aprendido el castellano en la escuela de la vida y, sobre todo, andando por España.". (Elcano spoke without doubt the Basque language, that was his mother tongue, and he learn Spanish in the school of life, and mostly wandering through Spain).
How could you use a reference (a very poor one, by the way, see below) to deny something that is written there, and, at the same time, say that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a good source:
Juan Sebastián del Cano, del Cano also spelled Elcano and de Elcano, (born c. 1476, Guetaria, Castile [now in Spain]—died August 4, 1526, at sea), Basque navigator who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth.
Please, stop. Theklan (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again why are you making false claims against my edits? Where did I delete any text or source saying he's Basque??
Do I need to remind again the actual lead was inserted by the WP:SPA account Mpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with no sources?
Do you realize your actual sum of sources make WP:SYNTH as many disagree/collide between eachothers? One is even called Elcano, the Spanish navigator.
Why are you trying to hide Elcano was Spanish despite this being backed up by all reliable sources including most of yours?
I'm not saying he wasn't Basque that's why I have inserted the stable lead before the change made by the SPA account on 26th August 2022. And you even directly lie about my edits in the ANI page, saying I have deleted sources while I've actually added one and you deleted it saying the official Real Academia de la Historia is not reliable. Why are you doing this? Navarran94 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Real Academia de la Historia is not reliable because they claim that Elcano was a captain when he was 8 years old. Also, there's no thing as "official". Indeed, if it is official of something, is of Spanish nationalism. The source claims that he was Basque. He only spoke Basque till he had to learn broken spanish in his adulthood. All the people who signed his will were Basque, something remarkable because he was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Contemporary sources claim he was Basque (a.k.a. Biscayan), Encyclopedia Britannica opens with the claim that he was Basque. And yes, you deleted once and again the same claim. I'm not going to discuss about a Basque being Basque with every one coming to Wikipedia, because that would be lossing precious time.
By the way, you have the word Spain in the same sentence, if you continue reading. Theklan (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. You're claiming that an official institution created in 1738 to study history (read Real Academia de la Historia) is "not reliable, Spanish nationalist" this just proves how far from WP:NPOV you are, while you insert .eus Basque institutions created by the ruling party in the Basque Country called Partido Nacionalista Vasco.
2. The sources claim he was of Biscayne origin yet they also claim he was able to speak Spanish in the expedition, noted by other tripullants in the ship / expedition. This is not argued by anyone.
3. The problem is that you try to hide Elcano was Spanish (while I'ne never made any edit deleting he is Basque, despite your repeated claims) I've just said "origin" or "ethnicity" (like it was in this Wikipage for YEARS before the change of the SPA account Mpub) he was both Spanish and Basque (in fact the last is supported by many less reliable sources, yet we can leave it since you (few users) want to keep it as it's also backed up by good sources. But the Encyclopedia you mention also says he was Spanish. He literally died for the Spanish Empire. No one tries to delete he was Basque, you want to delete he was also Spanish while deleting reliable sources. Navarran94 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1- Read the criticism section of the article. Then explain how he was a captain when he was 8. And then explain how a war in the early 1500s happened AFTER another one in 1509. That's the seriousness of that institution.
2- I can speak English and I'm not English.
3- Dying for the Spanish Empire doesn't change anyone's nationality. Most of the expedition died and many of them weren't by any way Spanish.
Even your source says that he was Basque. And the Encyclopedia Britannica. And National Geographic. And most of the scholarly books published in the last years.
Stop edit-warring. Theklan (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And who says he wasn't Basque? I've literally inserted the lead this page had for years before the WP:SPA disruptive edits, it always said Spanish or Castilian with Basque origins. It seems ethnicity is not good for you (it's even better than origins given your own POV) yet denying Elcano was also Spanish is comparable to the Flat Earth conspiracy. Moreso when you say the Real Academia de la Historia (an institution that dates back to 3 centuries ago) is a Spanish nationalistic source!!! Navarran94 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only nationalistic, also unreliable. They claim that a war happening in 1495 was after another one happening in 1509, and that a man born in 1487 was a captain in both. Theklan (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Military life[edit]

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: [6], [7]. All the section should be changed to reflect the current view on this affair. -Theklan (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 September 2022[edit]

typo, shp should be ship below:

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

 Done, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Spanish Royal Academy of History is not a reliable source[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Article hijacked by silly disputes[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is not an area where I usually edit, but on an unrelated visit to WP:ANI over issues in an area where I do frequently participate I came across a pretty brutal argument between a handful of editors over this particular page. On checking the article and the talk page I was shocked to find that a) people have been arguing over this since at least 2006 (!) and b) the article itself has lots of more pressing issues, ranging from poorly sourced statements, which are a big issue, to less important things such as poor translations, "unnatural" English and anachronic references (seriously, Argentina in the sixteenth century?). All of these issues could be easily fixed by spending no more than 10% of the energy wasted in futile discussions. This whole thing is a prime example of a discusión bizantina, a concept I believe all parties to this dispute are probably familiar with. As I see it, there are two sides (namely, the ones emphasising the "Basque-ness" of Elcano and those emphasising his "Spanish-ness"), and each has entrenched itself in maximalist, nationalist positions instead of seeking compromise, to the detriment of the article and its readers. The opening sentence of the article epitomises this:

Juan Sebastián Elcano (Elkano in modern Basque; sometimes misspelled del Cano; 1486/1487 – 4 August 1526) was a Spanish navigator, ship-owner and explorer of Basque origin from Getaria, part of the Crown of Castile when he was born, best known for having completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth in the ship Victoria on the Magellan expedition to the Spice Islands.

We would (ideally) want the opening sentence to get the potential reader's attention by presenting the fact that makes this person notable. Instead, the reader gets to learn the differences in spelling between Spanish and Euskara, his Basque ethnicity, the town where he was born, and the fact that the town was located in the Crown of Castile at the time of Elcano's birth, before finding out, almost as an afterthought, that this man completed the first circumnavigation of the globe. I think we can all agree on the fact that this last bit is by far the most important, especially for an English-speaking reader! The way I would rearrange the opening sentence (whether you like it or not is up to you, you can take it, modify it, or disregard it entirely - I'm not going to even touch the edit button!) would be the following:

Juan Sebastián Elcano (Basque: Juan Sebastian Elkano; 1476/1486/1487 – 4 August 1526), sometimes spelled del Cano, was a Castilian navigator best known for having completed the first circumnavigation of the globe.

(optional: keep some variation of "in the ship Victoria on the Magellan expedition to the Spice Islands")

Note that Castilian in that sentence links to the Crown of Castile. I believe everyone here agrees that the territory where he was born was part of the Crown of Castile at the time. If you believe it overly emphasises a "Castilian" identity, just remove it and discuss it later on in the article - that, along with his ethnicity, and the debate surrounding his date of birth can be dealt in subsequent sentences, or in the biography (Elcano was born to a Basque family in...).

I would also like to clarify a couple of things that I saw brought up in the ANI:

  • Basque nationality: I saw a user was incensed about the use of "nationality" here, but while it is not its most common meaning in English (and non existent in Spanish, where nacionalidad is roughly equivalent to citizenship), the term can also refer to a person's ethnicity. The fact that someone uses the term nationality in this way doesn't imply bad faith nor an attempt to push for Basque independence. There's no need to get worked up over it. This being said, I think it's also unnecessary to stress Elcano's Basque origins at every turn.
  • Sources: The Real Academia de la Historia isn't a neutral source. No "official history" ever is. But neither are press articles in Basque media. I'm not saying you should ditch everything that comes out of the RAH or disregard articles written by Basques, merely that you should engage carefully with your texts. Another problematic issue is that several claims in the talk page, as well as some in the article, are based on primary sources (i.e. Elcano's testimony and that of other members of the expedition). Remember Wikipedia policy is to not base contentious claims on primary sources (and, if possible, to stick to secondary sources) and not to engage in any sort of original research while editing. There should be plenty of reputable secondary sources (academic journals, books, high quality encyclopedias, even press articles as long as they're written by reputable authors) from which to draw information.

I'm not an administrator, so you don't have to accept my suggestions, or even listen to me at all. I'm just a random editor that isn't even interested in this specific topic in any serious capacity. The only reason I spent an hour of my time writing this is because I think there's a group of people here who, if they decide to act in a civil manner and work together, have the key resources (time, will, and command of the relevant languages) to turn this, as well as other similar articles on the topic of exploration and colonisation, into a useful source of information for English speakers who might be curious regarding the subject. Of course, this only holds true if you people are actually interested in turning those articles into a valuable resource, and not in merely pushing your PoV, getting your opponents blocked or banned, and playing a game of quién la tiene más grande. It's up to you. Ostalgia (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ostalgia, I appreciate your good-faith efforts here, and I hope people will listen to you. However, you said, correctly, that the Real Academia de la Historia isn't neutral, "no 'official history'" ever is--and "official" is already problematic, of course. But you added this, "neither are press articles in Basque media", and I cannot accept that. If the Basque media is not to be accepted, then neither is the "Spanish" media. You can't say "it's biased because it's Basque", as if the other side (since I believe your choice of words means you treat this in an adversarial manner) is not biased. No, a Basque publication is prima facie as good as a Spanish one: everything depends on fact checking and neutrality. Sources, if challenged, must be taken seriously and scrutinized, but preemptively discrediting sources because of where or in what language they are published, that cannot be. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Ostalgia: I support this lead. Keep in mind the lead before the WP:SPA account hijacked ut (which is curiously supported by the 2 basque ysers here) said Elcano was a Castilian of Basque origin, now they support just to write Basque despite no single sources excludes Spain.
So it has to be Castilian alone or Spanish of Basque origins/ethnicity - just what the sources say and I like your proposal. I also agree Elkano in bold text makes no sense and there is no reason for that, the back up is a Basque Nationalistic source saying they made such a change in 2021 now how is that relevant for the Wikipedia? I agree as well. Navarran94 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drmies - I believe you misunderstood me (or I failed to express myself properly). I was merely referring (as I mentioned) to what was being both proposed/objected to (by either side) at the ANI - I did not mean to imply that Spanish media should be privileged over Basque media by virtue of being Spanish (or at all!), and I apologise if it came across that way. I did try to make it clearer by saying that my point was not that they should disregard the RAH or articles written by Basques, but that they should engage carefully with every source. There are reputable and non-reputable sources in every language and from every country/region, you'll find no disagreement from me there. Ostalgia (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ostalgia's comments, with his clarifications, are well said, and I agree with them. Carlstak (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: regarding the supposed anachronism of referring to Argentina in this passage: "The fleet sailed across the Atlantic Ocean to the eastern coast of Brazil and into Puerto San Julián in Argentina...", it is commonplace in historiography to use modern place names in referring to geographical locations that were unnamed by European explorers at the time they "discovered" them, even though those places often already had names given them by the natives of those places that wouldn't necessarily correspond to modern geographical concepts such as "Brazil", and wouldn't likely be meaningful to modern-day readers in any case. I've added a clarification to the article text.

I don't mean refering to them by native names, which in fairness we are often ignorant of, but if the intention is to merely insert a geographical reference, "modern day [country]" is both a safe and a correct approach. As I said, though, this is among the "minor" issues and a low priority (but a pet peeve of mine, if I may add!). Ostalgia (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, "modern day" is not the best usage, because they didn't go to modern-day anywhere. "What is now" is better. Carlstak (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"What is now" is peachy. I'm all for it! Ostalgia (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of my friends uses the descriptor "peachy" frequently; for some reason I find it utterly charming. It might be because he looks like the living incarnation of the image of Alexander the Great I've always had in my mind's eye a Greek god. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carlstak Modern-day is pretty standard phrasing. It is the region or location that is now modern-day something, it was not modern-day something in the past. Nobody is going to take it to mean that people were time traveling. "What is now" works also but there is nothing wrong with "modern-day" unless this is already in WP:MOS somewhere. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply, DIY, but notice that I didn't say "modern day" is wrong, I said it "is not the best usage" and that "What is now" is better. Also notice that my original comment was "it is commonplace in historiography to use modern place names in referring to geographical locations that were unnamed by European explorers at the time they 'discovered' them", so I was making the same point you're making here, but mine was about the "supposed anachronism of referring to Argentina" (my words) that Ostalgia was referring to. With all due respect to Ostalgia, who I'm glad started the conversation and whose input I value, I find it amusing how some editors advise us of their "pet peeves", especially on their user pages, when those very pet peeves are often in opposition to the pet peeves of other editors.;-)
Ostalgia's commentary is clear, thorough, and sensible. Largoplazo (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Ostalgia for the comment and trying to make this article more interesting. The problem here is that... he wasn't castillian. Sure, he was born under the Crown of Castile, but no one in Gipuzkoa would call themselves Castilian, not only for historical and political reasons (global hidalguía), also because there's a distinction between been administred by a Crown and being part of the metropoli. The same applies for people from the Canary Islands, who were born under the Crown of Castille, but weren't castilians.
RAH is not a reliable source, not because the nationality issue, but because the article on Elcano has important errors created in the 19th century to justify the rise of Elcano as a "good Spanish". They invented a military past, impossible for a 8 years old kid, and just recently they changed the birth date to the real one (Elcano himself said his age when enrolling in the ship). That's why you have 3 dates in the beginning.
About sources, is true that Basque sources emphasize his basque-ness and Spanish sources will do the same with his spanish-ness (there are no sources talking about him being castilian, for obvious reasons). Encyclopedia Britannica or National Geographic calim that he was Basque. Also most of the recent academic papers claim this. And the surviving accounts made by a Portuguese sailor also say he was Biscayan (aka Basque). There is another source from the 16th century made by Portugal where they say that the Prince of Tidore spoke Biscayan (aka Basque language) because he had contact with them when he was young.
So, which are the pros and cons of each of the "nationalities" in dispute here?
  • Castilian. PROs: it makes clear that Getaria was part of the Crown of Castille and makes the sentence shorter. CONs: he wasn't castilian and no source is claiming that.
  • Spanish. PROs: it is less difficult for a reader, because they should know more about Spain than about the Basques. There are sources claiming it. CONs: we hide his nationality and is less precise.
  • Basque. PROs: there are good sources claiming it and we make justice to him being Basque (see below). It is more precise. CONs: we don't give a clue about him being born in present day Spain.
Why do I think that we should point him being Basque?
  • We have good sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, National Geographic, present day and old sources) claiming it. Even the sources like RAH that try to emphasize him being Spanish have sentences like "he was fully Basque" in the text.
  • He was born in a town where everyone spoke Basque language and very few Spanish. As an adult, he wasn't even able to speak good Spanish and even the RAH aknowledges that his every day language was Basque. He even made some conversations in this language with the Prince of Tidore (as stated by the Portuguese).
  • Nationality/citizenship is a more modern concept. But there are some interesting things in his will. The first thing is that he didn't use the word Spain in it (actually, he used it in the sentence "when [the ship] goes back to Spain"). This is not a proof of him not feeling Spanish, for sure, because that would be a modern discussion (national feeling). But there's an important detail in his will: all the people who signed it were Basques. This is a really astonishing fact, because he was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Is to say, he gathered all the Basques from the ship, and only the Basques, to sign his will. If this is not a "nationality" claim, I don't know what could be a valid one.
How would I rewrite the first sentence?
Juan Sebastián Elcano (Basque: Juan Sebastian Elkano; sometimes misspelled del Cano; Getaria, Crown of Castille, 1486/1487 – Pacific Ocean, 4 August 1526) was a Basque navigator, ship-owner and explorer who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth in the ship Victoria after the Magellan expedition to the Spice Islands. Theklan (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You put a lot of emphasis on whether Elcano felt that he was Castalian. A person who is two meters tall is tall whether they feel tall or not. As a person born in the United States to parents who were US citizens and had lived in the US their entire lives, I am an American citizen/national regardless of how I feel about it—it would still be accurate to describe my nationality as "American" even if my parents had moved the family to Japan when I was an infant and I'd been been living there ever since then without relinquishing my citizenship.
So I discount the relevance of his feelings. Let's, instead, look at whether somebody who is the subject of such-and-such an emperor or "crown" is appropriately described by the related demonym. Were Londoners living under Roman rule called "Roman"? Were Indonesians considered "Dutch" people while living under Dutch rule? Were Ethiopians or Libyans ever deemed to be Italian? Largoplazo (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I only mention once the "feeling", only to say that "national feeling" was not a relevant discussion in the 16th century. So, no, I'm not adding emphasis to wether Elcano felt himself. I'm citing that sources (good and relevant ones, both contemporary and modern) say he was Basque. Theklan (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's take, for example a random "American" who died even before the US was created: John Thomas (American general). Would it be fair to the person and to the sources to call him British? I don't think so. Theklan (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you disagree with emphasising his "Castilian identity" as artificial, then perhaps we can do a permutation of sorts and go for "was a navigator in the service of Castile". In all honesty I do not believe his ethnicity is what makes him notable, certainly not to most English speaking readers (who would probably be more curious about who he served than about his ethnicity), and it will lead to arguments once again. If running with Castile in any capacity is something you still find unsettling, then (as I mentioned earlier) perhaps it's best to do away with it in the first sentence and introduce commentary on the topic of his ethnicity and service in the following sentences, and elaborate upon it in the bio, in a more nuanced manner. I don't think anyone is denying he was Basque (as you yourself say, even the RAH states that he was Basque), nor is his service to the Castilian crown (which we can consider one of the precursors to the Spanish state) in question, but it is clear that emphasising Basque-ness over Spanish-ness is a controversial issue that has caused over a decade and a half of arguments here and more recently at the ANI. Now I am sure that both sides would want their preferred identity stressed in the opening sentence, but precisely because of this it's likely best to deal with the issue in more depth further on, and while neither side will be completely happy with this, you'd do well to remember that oftentimes lo mejor es enemigo de lo bueno.
I'll repeat, however, that this is your article, so to speak, and your topic. I will not touch your article - you guys know a lot more about Elcano and his exploits than I do, and you all are more invested into this than I am, but it would be a waste if all that knowledge and energy was spent in dumping more and more words, references and footnotes to the opening sentence of the article, or even worse, in trying to get each other banned, when it could be spent into making this article as complete as possible.
Best of lucks! Ostalgia (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the insights, Ostalgia. I like the approach "navigator in the servive of Castile". I think that a good opening could be:
Juan Sebastián Elcano (Basque: Juan Sebastian Elkano; sometimes misspelled del Cano; 1486/1487 – 4 August 1526) was a Basque[n-1] navigator and explorer in the service of Castile who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth in the ship Victoria after the Magellan expedition to the Spice Islands.
I think this follows the schema in Francis Drake and follows the schema in MOS:FIRSTBIO. Theklan (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should support Theklan's proposal as balanced, in step with sources and regular, natural community definitions existing in the early 16th century, and relevant also today. I would nuance it "in the service of the Crown of Castile". Note that the Crown of Castile was a broad term including different kingdoms and peoples, as opposed to the Kingdom of Castile, the core of historic Castilian territory. I would say "onboard the ship Victoria", but this is only my non-native intuition... Thanks all editors above for contributing to this discussion. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lead before the stable edit was hijacked by the WP:SPA account said "Castilian of Basque origin" there is no chance in any ways to remain just Basque as that's not supported by any source (all say Spanish as well) so it's either Ostalgia's proposal (just Castilian) or Spanish of Basque origin/ethnicity which is the lead this page had for years before the SPA took action in 26th August 2022.
Also, what you say is not true at all. Both National Geographic and Encyclopedia Britannica say he was a Spanish - Basque navigator, in the Encyclopedia in fact the first thing you see when you enter the page is "Spanish navigator" just after that they say Basque to repeat Spanish again in another paragraph... also putting Getaria (now in Spain) is not repeated as you claimed in one on your edits, Spanish =/= Spain. And why is Elkano bolded? As other users have said (and I agree as well) that's distracting and doesn't improve the page. It's enough by putting it , not bolding it too... given the fact the source talks about a 2021 approval from some Basque Association and Elcano signed as Del Cano, Elkano can be mentioned but not bolded. There is no reliable source where Elkano prevails as his main name. Navarran94 (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lying is ok if you are with your friends, but not here. The Encyclopedia Britannica lead is this:
Juan Sebastián del Cano, del Cano also spelled Elcano and de Elcano, (born c. 1476, Guetaria, Castile [now in Spain]—died August 4, 1526, at sea), Basque navigator who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth.
Also "some Basque Association" is the Royal Academy of the Basque Language (Euskaltzaindia), the maximum authority for Basque naming, as Royal as the Academy of History (RAH). A little bit of respect for the sources would be appreciated. Theklan (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Navarran94, you have been warned in an ANI. We are discussing the lead section and you are still edit-warring with the same arguments. Theklan (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For you a simple edit is edit warring? We can talk here, your reason to revert my last edit given the strong reasons is very lame, we are talking it here of course, that's why I didn't make any major change but unbold text that is less relevant and putting a single wikilink.
There is no reason to bold Elkano. Provide the reasons, you've been asked for this during the last 2 weeks in talk pages, since you ignore me and didn't provide any reason (and also Ostalgia noted this, with saying it, is enough, why would you bold a name approved in 2021 according to that source) small changes like yours are allowed, just like mines.
I didn't revert anyone's changes, like you do and after blame me for doing this which is exactly what you're doing. Please STOP this attitude. You've opened 2 ANIs against me trying to get me banned and you didn't get the result you wanted. Try to edit Wikipedia according to the WikiTOS. Please stop blaming me and personal attacking me everywhere. Navarran94 (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm following MOS:FIRSTBIO. Also, "approved in 2021" is a misrepresentation of sources. Even more if this source is the maximum linguistic authority of a given language. Theklan (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the repeated personal attack, breaking WP:NPA once again.
Now I'll copy and paste what the Enciclopedia says, despite you trying to manipullate the text from the source (once again) to gather just the data you like, making WP:SYNTH again. Let's paste what the source says:
= Juan Sebastián del Cano =
Spanish navigator
Alternate titles: Juan Sebastián Elcano, Juan Sebastián de Elcano
By The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica • Last Updated: Jul 31, 2022 • Edit History
Juan Sebastián del Cano, del Cano also spelled Elcano and de Elcano, (born c. 1476, Guetaria, Castile [now in Spain]—died August 4, 1526, at sea), Basque navigator who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth. Navarran94 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Now that we agree that the article at Encyclopedia Britannica says that he was a Basque navigator, with a link to the concept Basque included, we can move on and go to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#cite_note-1. And that's it. Case closed. Theklan (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to say, but "Del Cano" has no leg to stand on, and I will be very clear on this point. It may be claimed that at some point the Spanish intellectuals (and English language publications mirroring them) were not acquainted with Basque culture and language, and thought of the name as Spanish in language. Not any more and long gone, luckily. José Arteche, writer of Elcano, was even accused by influential figures in Spain during the mid-20th century of being a (Basque) "separatist", for defending "Elcano" as the surname of the seafarer, instead of "Del Cano". According to Arteche, the Basque painter Ignacio Zuloaga felt pushed by the political circumstances to entitle "Del Cano" his famous romantic portrayal, and not "Elcano", as he honestly believed, stating upset that he would one day come back to strike off the title with paint. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getaria is the regular and official name in the Basque Country, with no real tradition in English.
"(born c. 1476, Getaria, present-day Spain - August 4, 1526, at sea) was a Basque navigator from the Crown of Castile who completed (...)" Iñaki LL (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, Iñaki: 1486/1487. 1476 is a false date invented by the RAH to justify a military past. This false date is no longer used, and the reason is explained in many recent publications (and is referenced in the article). Theklan (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not familiar with the argumentation on the birth date really. So be it. Iñaki LL (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies: As you can see, the source entitles him as a Spanish Navigator. Then it also says it was a Basque navigator in the lead. But the title is Spanish. So, to be neutral, Spanish-Basque is completely valid, as it is right now, even if we can start to find very reliable sources (in English) that won't mention Basque yet since my point has never been to remove anything Basque (my point was just to return to the previous lead before the SPA removed Castilian and left just Basque) I'm ok with mentioning Basque as well.
As long as it says Spanish too (just as the sources say as well) either that or either just Castilian as proposed above in a proposal I do support for example. But I prefer to say Spanish and Basque given the pros and cons.
Also please read exactly what says in that 2018 Spanish RfC and its comments (which was made for Puigdemont, and an admin said that's not valid for other articles, but still let's take account of what it says) it basically says what I've been telling Iñaki for 2 long weeks. It says to prevail the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most.
That doesn't apply to Juan Sebastián Elcano. It applies to Carles Puigdemont or Arnaldo Otegi, as they identify themselves as having nationalities of their respective regions and most sources call them by their regionality which is not the case for Elcano.
Also who else supports Elkano in bolded text? As I see even you Drmies you didn't bold it in your proposals... and it has been noted that bolding that word is distractive (by another user) so since I agree as well let's unbold it since Elcano is mentioned by 99% of sources, Elkano by very few and most of them are just Basque. Still, we won't delete it... As for the lead, I prefer the actual one or either the Castilian one proposed by Ostalgia which at the end of the day is the most historically accurate one. Navarran94 (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Navarran94, you do not need to try and convince me: I really have nothing at stake here. I have no opinion on the bolding, for instance, though I will say (without looking at the MOS) that many articles use bold for alternate names--look at Jay-Z or Multatuli. My revert of your "Spanish people" link was only because of MOS considerations. So please do not ask me to study the sources or whatever. As an administrator, I am telling you what you can do, and what you should consider not doing. Judging content is NOT my job here. If you do not manage to convince your fellow editors, then that's really the end of it, and at some point, likely sooner than later, an admin (me, or someone else) might actually just close this entire discussion and enforce the consensus--that is, the status quo.

But you just unbolded the other name again. Any admin could, by now, block you for edit warring. You are going against consensus, and likely against the MOS. Just to stay on the safe side, I will show you how the process works. There will be an outcome, and you will have to respect the outcome. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the 2018 RFC is not about Carles Puigdemont, is about the implementation of the decision on Carles Puigdemont. It can e read here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive#RfC_on_use_of_Spanish_regional_identity_in_biography_leads and is in the Manual of Style. I'm not going to follow with a discussion of something that was closed by two consecutive RfCs in 2018 and is applied and suggested in the Manual of Style itself. The policy is pretty clear.
And, please, refrain from saying my point has never been to remove anything Basque when you have done it clearly: [8] or [9]. - Theklan (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Theklan for reminding it. Also, an important procedural note for all users: Help:Edit summary, and especially WP:SUMMARYNO. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Theklan's proposal is the best founded one, with good reasons given for it. I would only do just some minor changes to it, to arrive to this final version:
Juan Sebastián Elcano (Basque: Juan Sebastian Elkano; sometimes misspelled del Cano; 1486/1487 – 4 August 1526) was a Basque navigator, ship-owner and explorer in the service of Castile, who completed the first circumnavigation of the Earth in the ship Victoria after the Magellan expedition to the Spice Islands.
This version:
  1. is accurate, readable, and complete;
  2. gives only the most important information in the first sentence;
  3. and complies with the Manual of Style (including the "consensus to use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most", identity which Theklan has proven above that it was Basque).
On the other hand, the spelling Elkano in Basque language can be traced back at least to the year 1923 ("Arrantzale oek, Elkano eta bere lagunen anaiak dira, odolezko anaitasuna ez izan arren beren arrtean dagoen anaitasuna!", quoted from Etxegarai, Karmelo, Euskalerriko itsas-gizonak, published in 1923). The Onomastics Committee of the Royal Academy of the Basque Language, Euskaltzaindia, asked by the Elkano Fundazioa, has just answered recently (21 October 2021) that Elkano is the most appropriate Basque spelling, on the basis of the usage in Basque-language texts. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 08:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Xabier Armendaritz for your input on the usage of Elkano and your grounds for the option put forward above. For what I have searched among the Sami, Kurds or First Nations in Canada, I do not find a single pattern for bolding, but when a second or alternative name is provided (AKA or "or") bolding seems to be the prevailing trend. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I might have to be serious here already. This proves what I have been saying for the past 2 long weeks. Thanks to a quick Google search I've found the following:
Both @Iñaki LL: and @Theklan: (please @Drmies: see this) have been warned in previous ANIs to stop using this argument everywhere, proof:ñaki_LL also other users have noticed their strong POV which can be seen in their own wikipages in the English Wikipedia or the Basque Wikipedia so no AGF if the user himself wrote his political views. Now a third Basque user is taking action, semi-inactive in the EN WP but very active on the Basque WP. There is a clear lack of WP:NPOV here as only Basque users support Theklan's proposal.
As determined by admins, that RfC was only regarding Carles Puigdemont and admins have said it doesn't apply to other Wikipages. As well, Elcano never declared himself as a Basque Nationalist, neither sources call him just Basque (the opposite to Carles Puigdemont) so this "insistence" on that RfC has been proven wrong by admins in 2018 and it's still the same nowadays.
So given the fact a Wikipedia admin has already said that RfC doesn't apply to any other article (and given the fact even your own link says it applies to "use the regional identity used most often in reliable sources with which the subject identifies most" in which Elcano is clearly NOT an example, as there is no source where Elcano has ever denied being Spanish nor said he was more identified with being Basque) and given the fact all sources that say Basque say Spanish as well (just as the Enciclopedia whose title is Spanish Navigator, despite you denying it 3 times already) so if you want to be factually accurate as you say, Castillian is the way to go, since you want to shoehorn his alleged Basqueness, Spanish - Basque is a good status quo, but by any means only Basque is not a valid description. It's false. It's not accurate. It's against the sources. You can't make WP:SYNTH by taking just what you like to hear from the sources. Navarran94 (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That version is not accurate as it's WP:SYNTH by including only a part of what the sources say (erradicating any Spanish/Castilian reference) Elcano was not only Basque.
  • The MOS you say from that RfC has been proven invalid by wikiadmins (see links from above, it was for just one page) also Elcano has never declared himself being only Basque and not Spanish.
  • If only Basque users engage here (3 already) of course this will be only one sided and this page will have wrong factual claims, imagine being a scholar learning about Elcano to read in Wikipedia he was a Basque navigator when books says he was Spanish (Spanish - Basque at most) because 3 Basque users have agreed on that. This is getting less and less neutral.
Navarran94 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. Making it personal again.
By the way, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2018_archive#RfC_on_use_of_Spanish_regional_identity_in_biography_leads and not the previous Talk:Carles_Puigdemont/Archive_5#RFC_on_nationality are discussed here. Theklan (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My dear Wikicolleague, I'm not making anything personal. I've just wanted to post here that ANI involving you and Iñaki LL regarding your POV in similar articles, so other users that involve here can know it as well.
Also, please notice how 2 Basque users (3 including you) are talking about your lead proposal, ignoring there is another proposal that's supported by more users.
  • We are talking about @Ostalgia:'s lead proposal (see above) which is supported by 3 users (4 including himself) so I don't know why the "newly engaged" Basque user is making edits on your proposal if more users agree on Ostalgia's proposal, being completely different from yours. And Ostalgia's proposal is supported by international users (excluding me) while the Basque Nationalist proposal is supported by you and other 2 Basque users.

So, first propose over the most preferred proposal, not over the least preferred proposal, because there exists another one. This is how consensus are made. Thank you.

Navarran94 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are citing me, not assuming good faith, calling names and mentioning an ANI without a clear output where I'm not even mentioned. You were advised not to do so, but it seems that you want to follow in the same path. Good luck with that. Theklan (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not assuming good faith? You refer to the accusations you and Iñaki LL made against me here in this page (see above) or fastly reverting my edits in this page (thus breaking WP:AGF, or threatening me with the ANI, or calling me a troll...) do I call you names because I've posted a link to an ANI that proves your real background and intentions for this page? I'm writing all of this to show other users your edit past (Iñaki LL's as well) to know what are they facing to see this is a dispute caused by a lacking WP:NPOV such as you've done in the past in the EN:WP and there is much more data on that 2018 ANI yet I won't copy it, other users can see it by themselves there. I'll copy and paste a text from that ANI, it seems we're facing an 100% identical situation.
Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles on Spaniards from the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country to eliminate the Spanish nationality, ignoring the policies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, but have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator, as for example here: [10] "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles.". The administrator himself had to make several reversions for this reason [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
Are you sure you weren't mentioned in the ANI? Why do you still insist on that RfC despite admins themselves saying it was valid for one single article? Which doesn't even apply here as we have no proofs Elcano has ever denied being Castilian/Spanish nor claiming he is just Basque nor anything like that. It doesn't even apply here, you do the same here as you did in several articles in 2018 that finally got reverted. We try to reach a consensus here yet you ignore the most consensuated lead proposal and you just stick to your own proposal. Navarran94 (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm tired of your attitude. Sorry, I hope the admins close this discussion as soon as possible. Theklan (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis Brown, I believe you are neutral in this matter. Perhaps you can look over this discussion and perhaps close it if you think it has run its course? or, if you think there's more potential, direct it in a productive way? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was not posed as an RFC, so I don't think it needs "closing". Glendoremus (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glendoremus, thanks for the advice, but if this doesn't get closed it might go on forever. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Drmies and @Ostalgia, if this is meant to be an RFC, would you please clarify the point in question. Is it specifically to gain consensus on the opening line of the article or a more general statement that the article has many issues that should be addressed. I would like a chance to respond but I'm not sure what's being asked. Glendoremus (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glendoremus, this is NOT an RfC, it's a discussion that was started in good faith and then got completely out of hand, which is why it needs to be closed. It happens quite a bit and I'd do it myself if I weren't a part of the discussion already. That you're not quite sure what is being asked is precisely the issue. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not intend it as an RfC but as a way to provide an outside view that might be of use to... reconcile opposing views on the opening paragraph so that people could turn their attention to other, more important matters. Retrospectively, it was a futile effort, but I believed it was worth it at the time. I take full responsibility for the mess and do not oppose its closure. Ostalgia (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I agree, it was worth a try. I was thinking of helping out with this article but on second thought, I'm not going near it for a while. Glendoremus (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glendoremus, any help will be appreciated, and I think that improvement can be achieved even while sidestepping the thornier issues. Baby steps, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was worth a try. I think this article has been on my watchlist since I reverted a bit of drive-by IP chauvinism in 2013. Perhaps it will one day settle down, as Pablo Casals seems to have. William Avery (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was a noble effort, Ostalgia, and I appreciate your levelheadedness. This really shouldn't be so difficult, but I think the intransigence of some editors makes it so. Surely a compromise can be worked out, someday.;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ostalgia, I really do appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on bolding[edit]

Should the Basque spelling of Elcano's name be rendered in bold in the opening sentence? There is a dispute over this, with one editor maintaining that "it's distracting. MOS:BOLDALTNAMES tells us that bolding is appropriate for "significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article)". I note that Elkano indeed redirects to our article; the only point of contention I see here is about "significant". Editors are asked to be concise. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Wouldn't using {{Efn}} be more useful in this case? :Curbon7 (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support - I would follow the MoS here. I have seen that language variants use "Basque: Juan Sebastian Elkano" with a template, but also is bolded when it is relevant. I think in this case is relevant because it has been made official by the Royal Academy of the Basque Language, and because you can see it written with the letter k in the monument you can find in front of the town hall in his birth-town, in many street names, and even the foundation that studies him is named with k. But I'm not going to make a war on this. Both solutions seem to have pros and cons, and I would go on with the most usual at enwp. Theklan (talk) 06:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support - I see that Tȟašúŋke Witkó is bolded, but most Irish-language names in Irish people biographies of the English Wikipedia are in italics... so I see no clear criteria for this. Anyway, the spelling Elkano appears not only in Basque-language texts but also in the name of streets, in the name of a foundation, in the name of a one-Michelin-star restaurant... so definitely it should be mentioned. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 08:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I agree a Efn is more adequate. Most reliable sources say Del Cano (which according to the actual lead in Wikipedia is misspelled but his signature shown in Wikipedia and most sources say this, such as the Enciclopedia Britannica) Elkano is only mentioned by few Basque sources, not important here. Elcano is, I can say Elkano can stay but unbolded. Or either in an Efn. --Navarran94 (talk) 11:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment: He actually signed Juª Seb a s ti an del ca no. You can see it in his will. Theklan (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I will once again note that no tengo vela en este entierro, therefore my opposition or support should be noted as very weak. That said, I don't see Elkano as an alternative name (i.e. it's unlikely to be used in English) so much as his name in another language. This is complicated by the fact that it was almost undoubtedly his native language, but he most likely never used that name, both because he was only partly literate and because Basque (as was the case with so many other minority languages and dialects) was largely oral and completely unregulated (and at times outright persecuted) for centuries. It most definitely should be present, for it has modern significance among Basques, but I'd opt for adding it in brackets as the (modern) spelling of his name in his native language. A final, passing comment regarding the issue of redirects and significance: I'll note that typing "William of Normandy" redirects to William I, even though it is not bolded (or present at all in the first sentence).Ostalgia (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It's a correct spelling of his name, and it's a title that redirects here. Regardless of whether it absolutely must be boldfaced, the guidelines don't provide that whatever other criteria are applied, they aren't overruled by one editor's opposition to the general practice as voiced in the context of one article. Largoplazo (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Elkano may be the proper spelling in the Basque language but it's not typically used in the English language. Should be treated like any other name in a foreign language (eg Germany vs. Deutschland) in the English Wikipedia. I'm more concerned that del Cano is not bolded in the article. A quick review of reliable English sources shows that del Cano is used almost as frequently as Elcano. Glendoremus (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: Is true that del Cano and even only Cano has been used in literature, but there are enough references to deny this as a misspelling. There is even an article in the reference explaining why this is a misspelling that has been going from one to another. If needed, there are more references for this, but I don't think that over-referencing is good here, when we have an article written 102 years ago clearly closing the discussion. Theklan (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I'm not arguing whether it's a mispelling. It's an alternative spelling historically used in a wide variety of English references and should be bolded per MOS (i.e. it's significant alternative name and used in a redirect).Glendoremus (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Glendoremus, what I'm reading here is that you are actually supporting the use of bold. Is that correct? Drmies (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          No, I oppose putting Elkano in bold. Sorry, I got off track a bit and was arguing that Del Cano should be in bold. Glendoremus (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Understood! And interesting. Theklan (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I don't have a dog in this fight either, and consider it a trivial matter, but on the grounds that because this article uses the Spanish orthography with the acute accent over the "a" in Sebastián, I would say that it's using the Spanish name in the title, rather than the English form, therefore it is already in a foreign language on English WP, so for consistency, his Basque name should be bolded. Carlstak (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Inclined to support, as I explained on the section above, since that seems to be the trend in like cases. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, it's another language variant that's not commonly used in English. Keep using convention.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]