Talk:Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo

Is Cabrillo a traitor?

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

Cabrilho is quite well known in Portugal. Where does such strange idea comes from? He even came in Portuguese postal stamps, etc.75.42.79.126 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not how it worked. Portugal and Spain were rivals - not enemies, apart from when they were actually engaged in some conflict - and people from all over Iberia worked from one or the other country without being labelled "traitors". There were also same Castillian, Basque and Galician (and others) sailors working for Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.208.165 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Spain did not annex Portugal in 1580. King D. Sebastião died young and without a successor during a military incursion into Morocco. This resulted in a succession crisis temporarily resolved with the appointment of his uncle Cardinal D. Henrique as interim king. At the time of his death in 1580 King Filipe II of Spain, being a grandson of King Manuel I of Portugal, was legally recognised by the Portuguese Cortes (kind of Parliament) as King of Portugal. The two kingdoms remained fully separated (ran by separate administrations) until 1620 when Madrid moved to merge the two administrations. This led to the revolution of 1640 and the appointment of Afonso IV as king of Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.212.16.118 (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cabrillo to Cabrillo

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

you can see that this is in fact true at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9018466/Juan-Rodriguez-Cabrillo. the name is portuguese. english changed it to juan rodriguez cabrillo. just as mary is maria, marie and maro. :D

That was undoubtedly his birthname. However in the English language he's best known as "Cabrillo", so that's what we call him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Names here in the English Wikipedia get listed as they are commonly referred to in English. For example we have Francis I of France (not François); Victor Emmanuel III of Italy (rather than Vittorio Emanuele); etc. In the U.S., and in Spanish America for which he sailed, he is always referred to as Cabrillo. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is rubbish - so why it is John Cabot then, and not Juan Cabot? When in fact Giovanni Caboto was from Venice? The true name is João Rodrigues Cabrilho - call it John in English if you want, but why Juan? Total nonsense, lack of scientific rigour also!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.203.14 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

It seems the lack of consistency is instead on the Wikipedia policy - at times using John (like in many Portuguese kings' names) for Portuguese João, and in this case using instead the Castilian name Juan for João. It is sad to see that Wikipedia best judgement/definition of consistency is then based on "what is more common", even if being common means being wrong.75.42.79.126 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of consistency still - Sebastião Rodrigues Soromenho shows up with his Portuguese name in the English Wikipedia entry, when describing his 1595-1596 expedition along the coast of California, also when the Bay of San Francisco got its name (today's Drake Bay). Why not use his "castilianized" name instead (as done with Cabrilho) then: Sebastián Rodríguez Cermeño? Lots of consistency from Wikipedia here - bah....

The USA Library of Congress uses the name João Cabrilho in their web pages. What about that for consistency - it is the USA Library of Congress! Probably that is not a "reliable source" or "the most common usage" for the Wikipedia people either. The Library of Congress puts the Portuguese in their Hispanic section though. This is fine if being the Greek/Roman Empire Hispania Province (before Portugal and 300 years later Spain, even existed). Totally wrong though if being the uniquely bizarre USA-used only wrong anthropo-ethnic definition of Hispanic people nowadays, that scientifically should be called mestizos (in Castilian - or mamelucos, in Portuguese), like in a cross-bread between Europeans and local natives.

And since when Portuguese names João are called Juan in English? That is not the case for many Kings of Portugal, that in English are called correctly João or John (adopting the English equivalent). Say João I, João II, João III - that are known as such or John I, John II, John III. How consistent is that in usage of names? How consistent is also to have English replaced by Castilian? And if this is just because "it is the most common name", then you can also keep perpetuating other mistakes in history and science - and change the geometrical shape of Earth from sphere to a square, because that used to be more common too ages ago. Does the word update means anything to you?

Per policy, we should reflect the fact that nearly all of the literature on him in English still calls him "Juan Cabrillo", until such time as it can be said that "most of the works coming out about him are now spelling it Joao Cabrilho." I haven't seen any evidence of a trend in this direction. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then it is your choice: wait for everyone to catch up, or lead the change now to what are correct data, facts and names. That is what distinguishes a leader from a follower.

Likewise essentially the vast majority (unfortunately....sigh!...) of USA-authors based history is completely at fault when it refers Balboa to be the first European to sight the Pacific in 1512. In 1511 Antonio de Abreu was already in Timor - and the east coast of Timor is on the Pacific already. Anyway Pacific Ocean is the name that comes only also after Magellan in the 1520's. This is clear like water in all serious and error-clean scientific historic literature. Yet, you find again and again the same mistake in many USA scientific published papers or even books. Nothing is perfect, nobody knows everything - but this Balboa mistake is a systematic example where "being more common" does not makes it correct. Likewise, mutatis mutandis, with João Cabrilho. Again it is your choice: you want to be "trendy", go with what all the crowd does, or be correct and scientifically detailed?!!!

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

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

Dixit.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.183.203.14 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not lead. We follow what the Reliable Sources are saying. And the Reliable Sources are pretty clear in referring to him as Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo (starting with the U.S. government with Cabrillo National Monument). (Re: nearly everyone used to say Cabrilho was Spanish,; I live in San Diego and I can assure you that nobody either here or on Wikipedia has ever claimed that Cabrilho was Spanish; see, for example, this version from 2006. It's just as it says in the article, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo is what he was called when he was sailing for the Spanish Empire; João Cabrilho is how his name would have been rendered in Portuguese.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why Wikipedia leads into errors then, if it does not lead into correct facts. If the USA government insists in writing in the US dollars bills "in God we trust", it does not mean all USA citizens are believers in a God. I do not call that a "Reliable Source". If the Portuguese Government/Navy wrote in the modern statue/Monument to Cabrilho "João Rodrigues Cabrilho" - why is it not the Portuguese Navy a reliable source then? Is it reliable only written - wrongly ! - in the Castilian "version" (???!!!!) ?? Again if this is a question of using the English equivalent - then use John, but why adopting in the past and continuing to do the same error of using a Castilian name for a Portuguese sailor? Why Juan? Why Rodriguez? Why Cabrillo? This makes no sense at all when these names are not English either. So the only thing the Wikipedia is leading/contributing to is making an error perpetual. Again you can keep saying the Earth is flat or square if you want - just because "Reliable Sources" used to say so. These guardians of "knowledge" in the Medieval Age ended up burning Giordano Bruno alive, just because he was not a "Reliable Source", defending planets should exist around other stars. I think it is a blunt mistake keep using a Castilian name for a Portuguese sailor - if you are not using the English equivalent anyway. Is this to help the excellent world geography and world history levels of knowledge the average US citizen has?

I strongly and politely advise you to redefine "Reliable Sources" - I gave the example of Balboa above to see how "Reliable Sources" can be wrong. I am just asking for logic - you insist in applying an old and wrong recipe "just because it has been so". This is called a bad conservative posture. Conserving the mistake. Or is Castilian the official language of California now? I thought it was English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.61.70 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cabrillo portuguese

Nearly every source in the internet describes Cabrillo as portuguese, including the spanish edition of the wikipedia. So I changed the nationality from spanish to portuguese. 84.90.18.136 19:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alas - how could you have done that? What a mistake, if what was more common before was to consider Cabrilho Spanish. How dare you? Wikipedia runs (seemingly) based on "what is more common", even if being mistakes...so you just defied such policy - and hey...actually ran into facts and scientific accuracy instead. Bravo!!75.42.79.126 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

History

he was the first person to discover san diego shores —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.9.91.114 (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

No, the local natives discovered that area long before he arrived. That said, Cabrillo led the first European expedition to see many California sites. -Will Beback · † · 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

His name came from...

His name came a cat carc that now is extient[[Media:[[Media: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.232.239 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of Cabrillo's voyage was not from Mexico

The flagship San Salvador and Victoria were not built in Navidad, Mexico. Cabrillo (according to the following discussion in the spanish Wikipedia article by Professor Carmen González Huguet of the José Matías Delgado University in San Salvador, El Salvador) Built these ships on the orders of Pedro de Alvarado in the Xiribaltique Bay, in native tongue (now called the Jiquilisco Bay in Usulutan Department of El Salvador). He departed from the Port of Acaxutla (now Acajutla, still a small port by the way)off the Salvadoran coast bound north to Navidad, Mexico and on to discover the coast of California. Furthermore, she mentions not two ships, but rather 13 that were built and piloted by Cabrillo, of course the San Salvador being the flagship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KeniKex 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

An IP recently changed Cabrillo's birthdate, which we had listed as March 13, 1499, to "unknown". Another editor reverted the change, but on research I believe the IP was correct. I could find no scholarly support for that date or for any birthdate. Biographies mostly state that his birthdate, birthplace and parentage are unknown; from his later career they speculate that he was born around 1498 to 1500. I have changed the birthdate in the article accordingly, with references. OK with everybody? --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the IP as suspect without a source but since you have found one, it's all good... Also I have no idea where the March 13 1499 date came from or who added it - I only reverted for the reason I gave. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New placements

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

I had evidence about the naming

Undecipherable word

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

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

Thanks for catching that. It was added by a troll in January and nobody caught it. I've deleted it now. Anything else you see that needs fixing, please let us know - or go ahead and fix it! --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Change title name

The article's title should be changed to his real name João Rodrigues Cabrilho, since he was a Portuguese national. The current display is a Spanish variation of his name, but not it's correct writting or spelling. The fact that the English speaking viewers are more used to the Spanish variation or if the English books present that same variation is irrelevant. If someone's name is, let's imagine, John Thatcher, it would be ridiculous for the Portuguese article entry of him to be displayed as "João Colmo".

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroLFMA (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:COMMONNAME. For an illustration in practice, consider the article on Christopher Columbus. If Cabrilho is best known to English speakers as Cabrillo, then that's the name the article uses. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Then within the most respectful terms...that's bias. And the same is valid for Christopher Columbus, which can be understood partially as it is the English translation of his name, in this specific case a Spanish translation of a Portuguese name is being used in a English-written article...go figure. But again, Wikipedia's users have the power to change this rules don't they?

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

Maybe he was Spanish after all?

A researcher has discovered a document that could finally settle the "Spanish or Portuguese?" debate. In 1532, in a trial involving the theft of gold from a Spanish vessel, one of the witnesses was one Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo - who testified under oath that he was born in Palma de Micergilio, which is in the province of Cordova in Spain. Other details of that witness's biography match known facts about the Cabrillo who is the subject of this article. [1] There has never before been any definite information about where he was born. Of course, the Portuguese have claimed him for centuries and are not likely to give him up without a struggle. How should we handle this new information? --MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is important! I propose removing "Portuguese" (and any other mention of nationality) from the lead paragraph and adding a paragraph to the "Nationality" section referencing this new research and citing the news article. WCCasey (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree about adding the paragraph to the Nationality section (and if possible citing the actual academic paper, as well as the news article). Other than that, I think you are right in your implication that we should not rush into anything. This is a recently announced discovery, it is still being digested by historians. The Portuguese in particular want to review the original documents. I do note that the two best-known historians / biographers of Cabrillo both immediately embraced this new finding. Maybe, as you suggest, removing any mention of nationality from the lead and infobox is the way to go - until some kind of academic / national consensus is clear. I may have time to work on that later this weekend. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

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

His nationality has been debated for centuries. He was described as Portuguese by Spanish chronicler Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas; in his Historia General de los hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano, written 60 years after Cabrillo's death, Herrera referred to Cabrillo as Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo Português. The Portuguese claim him as a national hero, and several locations in Portugal claim to be his birthplace. However, the source for Herrera's description is unknown, and some historians have long believed that Cabrillo was from Spain. Harry Kelsey, in his exhaustive 1986 biography Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, writes that Cabrillo probably was born in Seville, Spain.
In 2015 a Canadian researcher, investigating a series of Spanish legal documents from a 1532 lawsuit, found that one of the witnesses in the lawsuit was named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. That witness testified under oath that he was born in Palma de Micergilio, a town in the province of Cordova in Spain. Other details of the witness's biography match known facts about the explorer. Several historians of Cabrillo hailed the find as a major historical breakthrough. Robert Munson, historian at the Cabrillo National Monument, said “This could be the smoking gun that proves where Cabrillo was born.” University of San Diego history professor Iris Engstrand said, "In all the articles I've written about Cabrillo, I note that we have no proof of where he was born. Now we sort of do." Harry Kelsey, a research scholar at the Huntington Library who wrote a major biography of Cabrillo, said, "Right now all the circumstantial evidence points in the right direction (i.e., Spain). This is the most exciting thing to happen to me in 40 years.” However, a leader of San Diego's Portuguese community said the new evidence must be carefully evaluated, and requested that copies of the documents be turned over to the Portuguese government for study.

One question: I quoted reactions from three people, is that too much? A broader question: The ONLY source for this information is an article by Peter Rowe in the San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times. Everything else I found at Google News is reprints of that article. The Canadian researcher does not appear to have published her results anywhere that I could find. Is it too soon to feature this information, if there is only one source for it? Opinions please. --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thinking further about this, I think we should not make such a big deal of it until there is more sourcing. Maybe a single paragraph like this:

His nationality has been debated for centuries. He was described as Portuguese by Spanish chronicler Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas; in his Historia General de los hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y tierra firme del Mar Oceano, written 60 years after Cabrillo's death, Herrera referred to Cabrillo as Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo Português. The Portuguese claim him as a national hero, and several locations in Portugal claim to be his birthplace. However, the source for Herrera's description is unknown, and some historians have long believed that Cabrillo was from Spain. Harry Kelsey, in his exhaustive 1986 biography Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, writes that Cabrillo probably was born in Seville, Spain. In 2015 a Canadian researcher, investigating a series of Spanish legal documents from a 1532 lawsuit, found that one of the witnesses in the lawsuit was named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. That witness testified under oath that he was born in Palma de Micergilio, a town in the province of Cordova in Spain. Other details of the witness's biography match known facts about the explorer. Several historians of Cabrillo hailed the discovery as a historic find supporting the idea that Cabrillo was Spanish. However, a leader of San Diego's Portuguese community cautioned that the new evidence must be carefully evaluated, and requested that copies of the documents be turned over to the Portuguese government for study.

Comments? (I do still think we should replace "Portuguese" with "European" in the lead.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"European" seems unnecessarily ambiguous. He was either Spanish or Portuguese, and the dispute about that is discussed in the "Nationality" section. I still vote for removing all mention of his nationality from the intro. The extra paragraph, as written above, seems good to me, except that I would put the <ref> at the end of the paragraph (unless there are different sources for the last three sentences). --WCCasey

OK, thanks for the input. I'll just leave out any nationality, I think you're right about that. I would prefer to cite the reference link twice, as shown - once right at the statement of where he said he was born, since it is so important and potentially controversial, and again at the end of the paragraph to show the source for the rest of the paragraph. Are you OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly did it. Of course the issue is still open for comments, suggestions, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think its important to remember that, as important as nationality is in later times, people of Crabillo/Cabrilho's time might not have had the same view. What was more important was being the subject of a particular king/nobleman, and perhaps a fully vested resident of a town or parish. Where was his hometown, and what king did he obey? The Iberian Peninsula was a complex array of overlapping polities during his lifetime.66.68.207.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: The "Spanish birthplace" information has now been published in the San Diego Historical Society's journal. IMO that gives the Spanish claim an authority that was never present for the Portuguese claim. Another editor and I have now modified the lede sentence to describe him as born in Spain, while adding that longtime tradition associates him with Portugal. --MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

About Cabrillo’s nationality – for more than four hundred years there has been no prove of Cabrillo’s nationality until 2015 when Dr. Wendy Kramer, (historian, researcher, author and paleographer focusing on 16th century Spanish government and the encomienda system) discovered 1532 documents in Guatemala, Spain and North America that proves that he was a native of Palma de Micer Gilio (today Palma del Rio), Cordoba, Spain. In her article in The Journal of San Diego History, volume 62, Summer/Fall 2016 [2] she shows documents from 1532 testimonies that Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo himself testifies that he is from Spain. Furthermore, in her new book "Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo (C. 1497-1543)" published in Spain this year (2018), she shows over 20 documents that methodically proves that he is native of Spain. Dr. Wendy Kramer is now working on an English version that should be available in the United States by the end of this year. --dB (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. As you can see from the above discussion, we were aware of her discovery in 2015, but since we did not have anything authoritative - just a news report - we were waiting for her to publish her findings. We just removed "Portuguese" from the lede, leaving no national identity. Now that she has published in a reputable journal, IMO we can regard the question as settled and say he was Spanish (while acknowledging the longstanding "Portuguese" tradition). --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates and fix my references! Finally this mystery was solved! dB (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dbuena79: This "mystery" is far from solved, you cannot take it upon yourself to continue reinstating that he was spanish in the lead. The Royal Academy of Spanish History itself continues to list Cabrillo as Portuguese. One scholarly publication does not give you the power to continue reverting edits and stating with definitiveness that he was Spanish (and it is certainly far from any consensus in the historiographical community). The current phrasing is both accurate and highly neutral, despite the fact that the majority of sources and institutions continue list him as Portuguese. Should there be new developments in the historiography concerning Cabrillo, you are welcome to bring them here to the talk page. Otherwise please refrain from acting unanimously on affirming his nationality. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Royal Academy of Spanish History does recognize him as Spanish, not Portuguese; accept Kramer's conclusions: [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.214.166 (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402230021/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWcabrillo.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWcabrillo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130822014111/http://www.cabrillocivicclubs.org/index.asp to http://www.cabrillocivicclubs.org/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627075135/http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/navegaport/d14.html to http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/cvc/navegaport/d14.html

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

This message was posted before 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cabrillo College, etc

George Washington also had slaves 104.220.108.138 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Just want to add that Cabrilho was not particularly different for worse than the society he lived at. Indigenous people were also slaving each other, even before the arrival of Europeans. The stronger native tribes in Central America would sell weaker native slaves to the Spanish, like in Costa Rica, etc. The Spanish were always outnumbered, but always had natives enemy of other natives in their troops. There were native cannibals doing atrocities as bad as the Spanish ones, etc. In Nicaragua and Panama some free black men also had Indian slaves working in farms for them, etc.

Thus singling out the explorer who actually died to discover, map, bring California to cartography...is very peculiar. Specially considering the Spanish did not properly explore California for the next 200 years, just coasting down on the way back with the Phillipines galleons. The USA history of colonization and damage to California natives was far deeper than anything Cabrilho could have done.

No wonder a majority of voters said no to Cabrillo College name change. How democratic is that, to ignore the majority? Yet, that is not quoted in this Wikipedia entry, is it?

There are better ways to help natives and anyone discriminated today, versus judging someone from half a millenia ago.

By the same token, and for consistency, since George Washington also had a dozen slaves, and during the Roman Empire anyone defeated could become a slave, ending up in the coliseum...then we should change the name of Washington State and the USA capital...and stop using this Roman alphabet and numerals, and roads, and aqueducts and Senators, etc.

This historical puritanism/revisionism is not going to bring us anywhere better, since the past is the past. To construct a better future examples of bravery and discovery and navigation capacities should be kept, as in Cabrilho and George Washington. There are plenty of worst/bad people to blame from those times, without pinpointing those who at least brought something good to civilization...or else I would not be here writing in the Roman alphabet, despite Rome enslaving everyone they could.

Peace 104.220.108.138 (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Solicitud de Corrección en el Artículo de Wikipedia sobre Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo

Estimados administradores y editores de Wikipedia:

Me dirijo a ustedes para solicitar la revisión y corrección del artículo sobre Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, específicamente en lo referente a su lugar de origen. Actualmente, el artículo menciona incorrectamente que Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo es de origen portugués. Sin embargo, según documentos oficiales, esto es incorrecto.

De acuerdo con el Archivo General de Indias en Sevilla, España, en la Sección Justicia 706, N.4, el propio Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo declaró en un testimonio oficial, fechado el 22 de febrero de 1532, que es natural de Palma de Micer Gilio, que es la actual Palma del Río, en la provincia de Córdoba, España. Este testimonio forma parte de un registro más amplio que documenta su participación en un evento relacionado con el robo de oro de la Corona española durante un viaje desde Veracruz, México, hasta Cádiz, España.

Esta información oficial y documentada debería considerarse más válida que la afirmación no confirmada de que Cabrillo era portugués. Solicito respetuosamente que esta información sea revisada y corregida en el artículo correspondiente para reflejar la veracidad histórica basada en fuentes primarias oficiales.

Quedo a su disposición para proporcionar más detalles o para ayudar en el proceso de corrección si fuera necesario.

Agradezco de antemano su atención a esta solicitud y su compromiso con la precisión de la información en Wikipedia.

Atentamente,

Portuguese00 Portuguese00 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. C F A 💬 22:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Palmeirim (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, indeed Cabrilho stated he was natural (sic) of Palma del Rio. Yes, those documents are rich in information and exist at AGI, etc.

Your interpretation, though, of the meaning of what "natural" really means is the problem, big main problem here - since the publication of Wendy Kramer's poor scholarship in this particular matter of natural Vs. being born.

Natural often meant naturalized in those times. It meant the land where I come from, where I spent some important time of my life, but not necessarily where I was born. That is the crux of the problem, and your incomprehensible insistence in denying this, get us nowhere.

For instance, the Portuguese sailor Sebastião Rodrigues Soromenho, serving the Crown of Spain while exploring the coast of California around 1595, stated in his testament that he was **born** in Sesimbra (just south of Lisbon), and a **natural** of Lagos (very south of Portugal), and a neighbor of Mexico City.

Soromenho got married in Lagos and considered himself a natural of Lagos - but he was **not born** there, but in Sesimbra instead. If you do not understand the insightful information of this and many other examples - then it is a useless discussion...and indeed no consensus can ever be reached...

Furthermore, Francisco Pizarro in his testament also stated he was "natural and born" (natural y nacido) in Trujillo, Spain.

Why the need to explicitly say that other than natural he was **also** born in Trujillo? Precisely to remove any ambiguity from the meaning of "natural", and make a solid statement about in fact being born in Trujillo.

There are plenty, plenty more such examples - please educate yourself better and read the latest peer reviewed published scholarship about these matters. You are frozen in time, back in 2015-2016 it seems...

Thanks to Wikipedia editors for being far more reasonable people and able to process all scientific available information without any bias. Palmeirim (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)