Talk:Ferdinand Magellan/Archive 2

(untitled comment)

first person to go round the world plus page was vandalized I'm going to see if I can revert it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.101.97 (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What the crap just happened here I went to go login and it was fixed when i got back! I am the above ip adress. Cupy 52040 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronuciation

I just noticed, that the pronunciation on the name is different to what is shown on the merriam-webster dictionary: It's stating it's ponounced "muh-jel-uhn" Kyprosサマ (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPA pronunciation gives all three vowels as the schwa. I find that consistent with the pseudo-phonetic pronunciation you quote from the Merriam-Webster, based on my dialect, (General American tinged with Southern American). -- Donald Albury 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.80.251 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Trinidad Survivors

Both Burgreen and Samuel Eliot Morrison say four survivors. Article has five. See Trinidad (ship) Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Le Voyage de Magellan published in 2007 in France (source) maintains five survivors who came back to Europe in 1525, 1526 and 1527 (tome I, p. 511). DocteurCosmos (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

new map

{{editsemiprotected}}

I thought that the map could be more illustrative so I made one that is.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Magellans_circumnavigation_1519-1522.jpg

-juha harju

PS. I'm not sure about the licensing, can we use Google Earth based images like this in Wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paarma (talk • contribs)

 Not done Appreciate your willingness and hard work in creating this image, but I don't think it is possible to use the image after reading Google's licensing terms. They are freely giving the rights for non-commercial use but for the images to be used on Wikipedia we need commercial use rights too. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Information-

I don't think there was enough inofrmation about his early life. It doesn't tell where he was born, his mom, dad, etc. More info!!

--69.209.134.28 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)User11999977 3-4-09

Further reading

Some recommended books get deleted from the "Further reading"-section. As noted in WP:FURTHER: [It contains] a list of recommended books, articles, or other publications that have not been used as sources and may provide useful background or further information. Before deleting please explain here why the book is not to be included. Reasons like: out of date and I have read Schurz. It adds nothing to what is already provided are trivial. Remember the section is for books, that have not been used as sources and may provide useful background or further information. feydey (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The list looks like an indiscriminate list of references that has merely been cut and pasted from somewhere else without anaylising or reading any of them. I have previously examined most of the books, and much more concerning Magellan. So I know that the additional references will not "provide useful background or further information". I can not see any usefulness in most of them, either because existing sources include all the information and more, or because the books don't even concern the subject. For example : Nowell includes only 3 of the 6 accounts of the voyage, whereas two of the primary references already include all six. Pigafetta, which is foreign language, is already provided fully in English as a separate primary reference. Bergreen is only a novelised biography much of which is made up. Schurz and Nunn are abbreviated biographies that contain nothing at all that is not already in the primary references. Parry does not deal with Magellan but instead writes generally about the subject. Thatcher has very little concerning Magellan. Hildebrand is a very inferior out of print biography that nobody reads any more. Which of the references have you read and assessed, and claim to add additional information that is not already covered ? --Professor Johnson (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if you had a look at the books themselves. You will then readily see for yourself how useless or irrelevant most of them are. References should be chosen carefully after having examined them. I could easily add a hundred more to that list. However, an indiscriminate list is of no practical use to anyone. --Professor Johnson (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Professor Johnson. DocteurCosmos (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up list by Professor Johnson's suggestions. They were very helpful. Having only read only some of the books I clearly had no comprehension of the subject. feydey (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I read Bergreen, but it was more like a novel than a biography. --Mary Sillitoe (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not previously seen the suggestion in the recent edit that if a book is used as a reference for a fact that that it should not be used for further reading. The book concerned was being used for only one single fact as a reference. As it includes all six accounts of the voyage and more it is relevant for use as further reading, as is any book that adds more information to what exists, either in the article or the existing references. --Professor Johnson (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Has the edior that added Levinson today (i.e. Magellan and the First Voyage Around the World) read that book ? I found it to be very lacking in several respects. I believe that those interested in Magellan would be wasting their time reading it as it adds nothing to the subject. --Professor Johnson (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For the reference, Professor Johnson and User:Dr B.R.Bartlett are most likely a sockpuppet of General Tojo, also known as Keith Bridgeman. The latter happens to be the editor of the book that he through his many sockpuppets promote [1], [2], while at the same time removing all other references as "old, outdated, foreign language", etc. Hence I have blocked him indef. Details at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/General Tojo‎ -- Chris 73 | Talk 13:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it makes sense. feydey (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And, to be complete, User:Mary Sillitoe is also a Tojo sock. There are a number more in the article's edit history, the following are known sockpuppets: User:QQ747, User:Darvit Chandhurai, User:Ronny 1953,User:Juan de Leon. Usually they are all removing other refs as old, outdated, foreign language, etc, and adding Bridgemans book as the primary reference to it, at the same time praising it as the superior work on the topic. The funny thing is, he did not even get the names of the original authors right. Its Gaspar Correia, not Correa. Anyway, once you know his goals, he is pretty easy to spot. Keep an eye out for him. Cheers, -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here since I don't see a Further reading section in the article, but the list of items in the Bibliography section seems a bit hodgepodgey. I suggest using shortened footnotes to better organize this; moving items currently in the Bibliography section but which are not referenced explicitly to a Further reading section as recommended in WP:GTL. Barring objection, I'll do a first-cut reorganization along those lines (somebody please nudge me with a talk page message if there is no objection and I overlook doing that work). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Having been nudged here, I made some edits attempting to improve this a bit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's more User:General Tojo. I undid one of your edits, folks may want to review the other. Wknight94 ^talk 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection Requested

I have submitted a request for full page protection to prevent known sock puppeteer General Tojo from vandalizing page. April809's Contribution ..... (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO a full protection would be excessive, he has been not active on the page since the sockpuppets were discovered, except for two vandalism on the talk page. See also on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah , you're right. Since he hasn't been active for three days (Who's counting?)it wouldn't make sense to put full protection

on this page. Well , I'll watch out for General Tojo (Toe Joe?),AKA Keith Bridgeman and his puppets.

It's nice to see that we have people watching over Wikipedia (We all can agree with that). April809User:April809 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Magellan's voyage around the world?

Is that possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.114.154 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering he did it, I'd have to go with "yes". Wperdue (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Magellan's Transpacific Voyage

I've recently made some extensions to the beginning of the "Death" section of this article; I noticed they were deleted, and marked as "unsourced and melodramatic". So, I decided to open a discussion on the subject.

My basic source for this extension (about the conditions and difficulties of Magellan's transpacific voyage) was a book by French author, Georges Blond, "The Great Sailors" (Polish title; original title was "Les grands navigateurs". As it describes William Willis' journey and the discovery of the remains of La Perouse's expedition by French vulcanologist Haroun Tazieff, I assume the book was completed about 1959 or - but no later than - 1960), describing several important sailors and discoverers (besides Magellan - Columbus, Cartier, Barents, Pacific discoverers, Charcot and William Willis). In turn, Mr.Blond based his relation of the transpacific part of Magellan's voyage on Pigafetta's diary. Don't know if that particular book book is available in English version.

I'm interested in any info on the subject - it's possible that some other reliable book on Magellan also contains similar or contradictory information, useful in any extension to this Wikipedia article.

Piotr Strzyz (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As you are new at editing, I presume you are not familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. In particular, the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability requires citation of reliable sources for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. General guidelines on how to cite sources are given at Wikipedia:Citing sources. You can also observe how other sources are cited in the article. Another policy is that all material in Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view. It is best to maintain an objective tone, describing only facts that can be supported from reliable sources, and avoiding strong adjectives. -- Donald Albury 18:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Pigafetta's diary and five other contemporary accounts of the voyage, some quite cryptic, were translated into English in 1874 by Lord Stanley of Alderley as The first voyage round the world, by Magellan, which is available online as noted in the article's primary sources. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ressource

The First Voyage Round the World, by Magellan, original radioplay based on Pigafeta's diary and Magellan's letters, broadcast on Radio Exterior de España (French program), 300 minutes into 15 parts. Available in French, on CD MP3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.225.8.44 (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a resource for this article in the Wikipedia sense, as scripts for any sort of dramatic presentation depart from a strict adherence to the historical record. Moreover, it is in French, and, to quote Wikipedia policy, "English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available." Given the number of sources listed for this article, one would have to demonstrate that a foreign language resource provided reliable information that was not available in any English source. -- Donald Albury 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again nationality

"However, he subsequently obtained Spanish nationality in order to serve the Spanish Crown, so that he could try to find a westward route to the Spice Islands of Indonesia." 1- He could not obtain Spanish nationality, he could obtain castillan nationality, Asturian, nationality, not yet Spanish. 1- It was not necessary to obtain Castilian nationality to serve the Spanish Crown. As it was not necessary to obtain Portuguese nationality to serve the Portuguese Crown ( and some were spies ) 2- What was necessary was to obtain the "carta de naturaleza" from Charles V to obtain castilian nationality, as it is show on item 8 "SER CASTELLANO, SER TOLEDANO" :[3] No such document was ever produced or mentioned. Please show the sources otherwise correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.20.176 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

First European to reach Philippines

In the Death section, the statement "Magellan ... became the first European to reach the Philippines." has been changed to "It is claimed he became the first European to reach the Philippine archipelago." with an edit summary of "The Portuguese had probably reached Sulu and Mindanao before Magellan reached Cebu". The lede says, "Magellan and his crew were ... the first Europeans to reach the archipelago of what is now known as the Philippines, which was unknown to the western world before their landing." I do not see any source cited for any of this. None of this means anything until someone can cite one or more reliable sources for either position. I am bothered by the use of "claimed" and "probably" in the revised sentence. That is marching off towards weasel words. Who says Magellan and his crew were first? Who says the Portuguese were first? -- Donald Albury 10:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[4] here, read page 546; [5] here, read page 133; [6] and here read page 138

None of those pages will display on Google Books. Did you use an account to access them? None of the books are available in my local library, either. If you have read the relevant pages in those sources, you can add the citations yourself. As I haven't seen them, I will not add any citation. -- Donald Albury 21:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All three display fine with google books for me. The third appears to clearly support the assertion, so I've added it to the article. I'm not so sure of the support of the other two, but I haven't done any more than glance at them—the support may be in there. the two which have not added to the article are:

• Rebecca Catz, ed. (1989), The travels of Mendes Pinto, University of Chicago Press, p. 546, ISBN 9780226669519; Translated by Rebecca Catz. {{citation}}: Text "Fernão Mendes Pinto, Rebecca Catz" ignored (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Tomé Pires; Armando Cortesão; Francisco Rodrigues (1990), Armando Cortesão (ed.), The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires: The Suma oriental of Tome Pires, books 1-5, p. 133, ISBN 9788120605350. {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |publisheer= ignored (help)

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. For some reason I kept getting messages that the cited pages on Google Books were not available for viewing. Ah well, the sources don't always support what I learned in primary school. :) -- Donald Albury 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Keith Bridgeman/ General Tojo

Dear sir,

We of the Wikipedia Community disapprove of your actions. We ask that you would stop your disruptive editing before we are forced to take action. Wikipedia is not about self promotion, but it is about the spread of knowledge. Not only is Wikipedia against self-promotion, in the real world, self-promotion is frowned upon.

You consider yourself correct and everyone else wrong. There is no law against that type of thinking. But please keep your opinions and beliefs to yourself.

If you want to vandalize my page, go ahead. I don't care. It would just show the immaturity of yourself. If you want to present a professional image, I suggest changing my intentions and finding a mentor.

Compression09King-Extreme Wikipedian (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please fix the Limasawa error, or at least acknowledge that the debate is ongoing.

About Masao, "Mazaua" and Butuan vs. Limasawa, Leyte debate:

1. Updated sources indicate that explorer Antonio Pigafetta erroneously replaced "Mazaua" with "Buthuan" in his eye-witness accounts. Fleet records of onboard scholars also indicate that Magellan had also met with the native Kings of "Buthuan", Colambu and Siaiu.
2. The "Limasawa, Leyte" connection continually contested due to evidence that the Isle of Homonhon, Limasawa, Leyte does not geographically "have the suitable anchorage" or the accurate coordinates that Mazaua was described to have (N 9º 40).

For more updated information on this debate and archeological/historic evidence to support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_mass_in_the_Philippines

Mmontalban (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Michael Montalban

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Due to obvious mispronunciation of the name of the discoverer in European Portuguese and differences in pronunciation of the name between European Portuguese and Brazillian Portuguese.

The proper European Portuguese pronunciation IPA would be: [fɨɾˈnɐ̃ũ ðɨ mɐɡɐˈʎɐ̃ĩs] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theburdencarrier (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 December 2009

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but as a native speaker of Portuguese, I must say that the current IPA pronunciation shown in the article is still wrong. And it doesn't help that there doesn't exist a universally-accepted usage of those symbols. The sound represented by the digraph "th" in the English word "they" does not exist in actual spoken Portuguese. 186.204.23.2 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ladroni: Thieves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.171.118.67 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Claim To Fame

To be the first to sail around the world successfully, even though technically only part of his crew..not including him..were the one who returned. It was still his voyage that made it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.9.217 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Did Columbus discover America? No; he didn't intend to discover it, he never landed on the mainland, and he maintained to his death that he'd reached India. Do we honor him anyway for his real achievements? Yes, while bearing in mind the genocide that followed.

The same standard applies to Magellan. He didn't intend to sail around the world; his mission was to find a westward route to the Spice Islands. And he didn't even complete that quest. A great navigator and an effective (though not undisputed) leader, yes. But Filipinos call him an invader and a murderer. Pigafetta and the other survivors were the first "rounders." --Deangup (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Above it was stated that: "Pigafetta and the other survivors were the first "rounders" Maybe, maybe not. Some experts think that Magellan went on Serraro's expedition to explore the Moluccas in 1511-1512 (see http://www.notablebiographies.com/Lo-Ma/Magellan-Ferdinand.html and http://library.thinkquest.org/C006522/exploration/magellan.php). This would have put him further east than where he died in the Philippines. Thus he could be considered to have completed the circumnavigation even if he didn't close the loop.Tony mendoza (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First Mass in the Philippines

Last line of the first paragraph on the "Death" section, as quoted below:

"Members of his expedition became the first Spaniards to reach the Philippine archipelago, but they were not the first Europeans."

There is no mention of First Mass in the Philippines by the crew of Ferdinand Magellan's Armada de Molucca, as referenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_mass_in_the_Philippines

Maybe that last line should include such a reference, or at least a link to First Mass in the Philippines, for historical context.

Carlton.bond (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)carlbond

Crossing the Pacific

There is no mention of the crossing of the pacific, which apparently took over four months, and the crew almost starved to death.

here's a few citations: [7] [8]

--68.5.99.58 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

18 survivors vs survivors onboard Victoria

Need to provide a source of the names of the survivor's list, since it doesn't exactly match the list of names I have seen on other sources.

The list of survivors does not match completely the list found in other sources. On this Wikipedia page, there is a Hans of Aachen (gunner) that is not found the list of survivors found the Wikipedia page of the sole returning ship Victoria. Victoria has listed a survivor "Martin de Isaurraga, of Bermeo, grumete of Concepcion", which does not seem to match any name on this page. In addition, the names of the two list don't always match - this page list a survivor "Antonio Hernández Colmenero, from Huelva, Mariner" while the same person on the Victoria list seems to be called "Antonio Rodriguez, of Huelva, marinero of Trinidad".

The list on the Victoria page matches the list I found on an online copy John Fiske "Discovery Of America", published in 1892. I am not sure what Mr. Fiske source was for the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.147.97 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 May 2010

As per Gregorio Maranon ,director of Instituto de Cultura Hispanica, Francisco Alba was from Axios,greek island of Rodos and not from Roda,Galicia as mentioned here. Similary mr Maranon confirm that 2 seamans mentioned by you with origin from Roda,Galicia are from island of Rodos [see: ISBN 960-7267-15-X] 87.202.21.161 (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar!!!

Hi! My teacher always told us that the possessive form of names that end with s should be spelled with 's (Chris's) In your article I saw that the possessive form of Columbus is spelled Columbus'. Please consider correcting this error. Thanks!!!

Well, my teacher said that, for someone/something with an "s" at the end of the name, writing a possessive as, for example, Chris' or Chris's are both acceptable (but just putting the apostrophe at the end of the word was actually better, as "s's" just looks a bit awkward).99.96.39.4 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

For more info and the WP guideline on this, see Wikipedia:MOS#Possessives. If there is no violation of the guideline, this is not an error as far as WP is concerned. In that case, consensus should probably be obtained before making a change. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fernão de Magalhães

Fernão de Magalhães can't be translated, "Ferdinand Magellan" is a wrong information, Albert Einstein name wasn't changed. A personal name identifies a specific unique and identifiable individual person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.13.13 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Star of Magalhães

I´d like to add to the text that the star Acrux is known in portuguese as Estrela de Magalhães after Fernão de Magalhães. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.47.144.102 (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that too sometimes, but as a matter of fact, many things get renamed in different languages. (Lisboa->Lisbon, Köln->Cologne) and in this case it makes sense, because most non-portuguese speakers won't even be able to pronounce his name correctly if not for the simplified, yet incorrect, version. --93.130.140.61 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and No Hyperlink

In the sentence, "In 1517 after a quarrel with king D. Manuel I, who denied his persistent demands to lead an expedition to reach the spice islands from west, he left for Spain." king should be capitalized. Also King D. Manuel I does not have a link to the page regarding this king. Lastly, it says "from west" in the sentence, while it should say "from the west".

I rewrote this bit. I changed "from west" to read "from the east (i.e., while sailing westwards, seeking to avoid the need to sail around the tip of Africa), citing Mervyn D. Kaufman (2004). Ferdinand Magellan. Capstone Press. pp. 13. ISBN 9780736824873.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Pigafetta

Quote from the article: "Antonio Pigafetta, related that Gaspar Quesada, the captain of Concepcion, was executed..." This seems to suggest that Pigafetta was executed, instead of Gaspar. Please change it to something like this: "Gaspar Quesada, the captain of Concepcion, was executed." 114.241.25.181 (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes for clarity there. The distinction is being made that Pigafetta reported that only Quesada was executed, while another report said that another captain was also executed. -- Donald Albury 04:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

the Pacific wasn't named the peaceful sea by magellan, but by Vasco Nunez de Balboa

No, Balboa called it Mar del Sur. -- Donald Albury 04:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish nationality

The article says he "obtained Spanish nationality in order to serve King Charles I of Spain. But King Charles of Spain was also the Holy Roman Emperor. Could you elaborate on that? If it was necessary to have spanish nationality to serve king Charles, as his kingdom spread from Central, Western, and Southern Europe, it really looks that something is not quite right.

One other thing that really looks weird is the "spanish nationality", in those days Spain was not a nation but the name of the Iberian Peninsula which included Portugal. As you can see this map spanish kingdoms included Portugal: [9] or here [10] . So to make it clear Spain was the same as Iberian Peninsula, not a kingdom or nation, but a geographic location. (it would be like confounding America the country(USA) and America the continent).

To finalise , to change nationality Magellan needed a "Carta de naturaleza", so what was the "naturaleza" (naturality) that he got? Aragonese, castilian, leonese? As in his own time there was not a country or kingdom called Spain, and as Charles V ruled other houses , could it be that Magellan got Austrian nationality? After all Charles V was Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria. Could someone really clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.186.121 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles I of Spain began his reign on 23 January 1516. He was the ruler of Castile-León and Aragon simultaneously in his own right (not by marriage), hence he was the first king of Spain. When he authorized Magellan's voyage on 22 March 1518 he was only the king of Spain, not of the Holy Roman Empire nor of Portugal. He became Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor over a year later on 28 June 1519. He abdicated in 1556. The Iberian Union of Spain and Portugal began much later in 1580 (and ended in 1640). Manuel I was king of Portugal from 1495 to 1521, hence during Magellan's voyage. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not talking about the Iberian Union. In the time of Charles I there was no Spain as a kingdom, he could not just be king of Spain because he wanted. Spain was the Iberian peninsula and it included Portugal, that was the common knowledge. Have you seen any document where he called himself king of Spain? Here it speaks about the five Spains, five kingdoms:

"There was a principle of equaltiy among the Christian kingdoms, which respect one another mutually and on occasion agreed upon the portions of the Reconquest to be carried out. The five were Leon, Castile, Navarre, Aragon and Portugal. They were accepted as a whole, very unlikely any other kingdom across the Pyrenees, as equivalent to Spain. The Five Kingdoms was a name that meant the same as “all Spain”, to the point that when the union of Castile had taken place and was irreversible, there was one kingdom less, the same expression continued to be used […]". [11] page 137"

As far as I know Filip IV used the title of "Rey de las Españas" (king of the Spains), that was accepted. Charles I of Castille did not use that title. Or can you show a document where he used that title? I never saw one.

Only after the Iberian Union, the name Spain was used without Portugal (not considering the use in muslim times).

Another thing that no one ever could make proof is the carta de naturaleza. If there is not one there is no change of nationality.

You can read here the document that naturalized Diego Colon,in 1504, the brother of Cristovan Colon. [12] Why don´t we have the letter that naturalized Magellan? There had to be one. Naturalization was a hot topic in those days,in January of 1518 the Cortes de Valladolid made a petition to Charles I not to entrust cartas de naturaleza and revoke those he had already given, .[13] pg 239 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.17.196 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If you need a translation from spanish let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.17.196 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I found another document, that may clarify the notion of Spain: "the designation of king of the Spains gave great offense in Portugal where it has always contended that the term Spain must continue to comprehend, as it did before the Moorish invasion, the whole peninsula, which is now properly divided into Castille and Portugal"[14]page 83 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.17.196 (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In the wikipedias of Spanish languages, not a single reference to the change of nationality :

• Aragonés- Ferrando de Magallans (en portugués Fernão de Magalhães) estió un nabegant portugués naixito en Porto lo 1480 y muerto en Mactán, as Filipinas, o 1521.

• Asturianu- Fernão Magalhães (Oporto, Portugal, 1480 - Mactán, Filipines, 1521), foi un navegante portugués.

• Catalá- Fernão de Magalhães (conegut també com a Magallanes en castellà, Magellanus en llatí o Magellan en francès i anglès, entre d'altres variants), nascut al nord dePortugal, probablement a Ponte da Barca,[1] al voltant del 1480 i mort a l'illa de Mactan (vora illa de Cebú, a les Filipines) el 27 d'abril de 1521, va ser un navegant i explorador portuguès de l'època dels grans descobriments.

• Castilian- Fernando de Magallanes, también conocido como Hernando de Magallanes (Sabrosa, Región Norte, Portugal, primavera de 1480 – Mactán, Filipinas, 27 de abril de 1521) (en portugués Fernão de Magalhães), fue un navegante portugués.

• Euskara- Fernão de Magalhães (portugesez) edo Fernando de Magallanes (gaztelaniaz) (Ponte da Barca, Minho, (Portugal) 1480ko udaberria-Mactán, Filipinak, 1521eko apirilaren 27a) nabigatzaile eta esploratzaile portugaldarra izan zen.

• Galego- Fernão de Magalhães, nado en Portugal en 1480 e finado en Filipinas en 1521, foi un navegante portugués coñecido porque, ao servizo do rei de España, baixo o nome de Fernando de Magallanes, foi o primeiro en cruzar o Estreito de Magalhães así como tamén o primeiro europeo en navegar por augas do Océano Pacífico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.51.237 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date

Date is incorrect. It currently reads:

"Magellan's expedition of 1819–1822 became the first expedition to sail ..... "

At actual date is 1519 - 1522 / not in the 1800s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.101.135 (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link to cited source

Citation #26, Maps of the Magellan Strait and a brief history of Ferdinand Magellan, is no longer with us. If someone could fix this case of linkrot, I'm sure the project would be grateful.TheRealTeln (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a link to an online sample of a commercial map on a website which has been reorganized so that the former URL used in the article is no longer valid. From the description given in the link, it's not clear to me which of several maps seen here might be the one of interest. If the link is there in order to cite a source supporting an article assertion, an alternative supporting source might be better. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)