Talk:John Cabot

message: *Cabot was indian,  france was created four hundred years after he was born.
:Try to be more helpful. What was "france" called in Cabot's day? - Adrian Pingstone 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: France didn't exist at the time, of course; but, would you call Hegel, Fichte or Kant Baden-Wurttemburgish, Saxon (why not Lusatian!!!) or Prussian philosophers, respectively, for the same reason? "Nationality" is a broader meaning than mere anagraphic registration. --Attilios (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, France DID exist as a kingdom at the time. You guys are thinking of Italy. Funnyhat (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: You are correct. We'd need a reliable source for such speculation, and I've removed it. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The article says "Cabot's birthplace and name are both controversial". I think "disputed" is a much better word.  The page is semi-protected; someone change that, please. Wastrel Way (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  French 

message: According to "Cartografía Marítima Hispana" Luisa Martin Merás, . There is a hand written text in Latin by Sebastian Cabot  in his famous map (Antwerp 1544). The only copy, found in Bavaria in 1843 is kept in French National Library, dept of maps Res. Ge. AA 582 (a facsimile is visible on Internet: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84389437/f1.item). This Latin text was copied in Castilian to Sancho Gutierrez 1551 map. This text stated next to North America:
"This land was discovered by Johannes Caboto, venetian and Sebastian Caboto, his son, in the year of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ MCCCCXCIIII, 24th of June in the morning. They put to it the name 'prima terra vista' and [...] This big island was named Saint Johhn, as it was discovered on Saint John holiday. People there wander wearing animal furs. They use bow and arrow to fight, javelins and darts and wooden batons and slings. This is a very sterile land, there are a lot of white bears and very big deers, big as horses, and many other animals. As well there are infinite fish: plaices, salmons, very long soles, 1 yard long  and many other varieties of fish. Most of them are called cod. And there are also black hawks, black as ravens, eagles, partridges,
The year is clearly stated MCCCCXCIIII in both hand written versions. Two options can explain this.
One option is an intentional change in dates made by Sebastian Cabot and Sancho Gutierrez made in the middle of XVI century. Intentional changes and inaccuracies were most common of geographers at the time, in order to obey political interests of their sponsors. As Sebastian was funded by German emperor of and King of Spain Charles V, he may be interested in showing that the first travel to North America was in 1494 and thus funded by Castilians or Portuguese and not English nor French. That started claiming their part of the cake.
Another option: Sebastian and Sancho are stating a true year, but this would mean Sebastian and his father John made a first scouting travel before proposing seriously their services to England in 1496. What seems suspect for this theory is that he says to be arriving the same exact Saint John’s holiday as stated in 1497 travel. Anyway the time lapse between their documented presence in Castile and Portugal and their documented presence in England gave them enough time to make an scouting expedition, with an unclear source of founding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco.j.gonzalez (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical first travel in 1494 

message: In the article, Cabot's favorite friend (mispelled) is a Nguyen Ly. Any other info on this individual's involvement with Cabot ? (No other specific reference to this 15th century individual found in Wikipedia) PFSLAKES1 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was vandalism, since removed. -- Alexf(talk) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friend's Name ID 

message: I changed the claim of Cabot being "commonly credited as the first European to discover North America" to "commonly credited as the first European to discover the mainland of North America", as that is how the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it. Note the (fairly) common meaning of North America includes Central America and the Caribbean where Columbus made his discoveries in 1492. The North America pages makes this clear, while noting alternate meanings. Of course even this claim is troublesome if Cabot landed on Newfoundland, since that it not the mainland. Still, the mainland statement is sourced, so. Actually the Catholic Encyclopedia takes it further, saying Cabot was "discoverer of the American mainland"--not just North America. But as the page Americas (terminology) points out, the term "American" is rather vague and problematic. So I left it as North America. Also, there is a paragraph, entirely within parentheses, which I added a "citation needed" tag too:
*(Like his contemporary, King Francis I of France, who would send Giovanni da Verrazzano to reconnoiter even more of the Atlantic coastline, Henry VIII was in part motivated by the perceived insolence of the division of the world into two halves by Pope Alexander VI in the Bull Inter Caetera following the success of Columbus's first voyage. One half of the globe was for Portugal and the other half for Spain.)
I don't doubt the Inter Caetera, but am skeptical that King Francis I of France and King Henry VIII of England were "in part motivated by the perceived insolence" of this papal bull. My understanding is that the Inter Caetera was never intended to be anything other than an arrangement between Spain and Portugal "brokered" by the Papacy. It applied only to Spain and Portugal. France, England, and all other nations were not bound by it--although Spain tried (and rapidly failed) to persuade other nations to recognize Spanish rights to the New World based on the Inter Caetera. I am skeptical that Francis I or Henry VIII found the papal bull insolent. They might have, and if so it might have played a part in Henry's support of Cabot. But, well, I checked the references listed here and found no such information. Thus "citation needed". Pfly (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of North America, sources, questions 

message: Un-sourced and illogical.  How would they have known?Dankarl (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a new fact for me thanks 2600:1700:47A0:66C0:8868:A921:72C:F51F (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to  then McDonald is quite clearly speculating about a possibility, not as strong as an implication. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  but they knew there was no Northwest passage (Sponsorship) 

message: There are reports that archaelologists are conducting research on a Catholic church built by Cabot's expedition in 1498. This could perhaps be added to the article, along with an appropriate commentary on Cabot's role in bringing the Catholic faith to North America. Traditionally, this role has been confered to French-speaking explorers like Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain, but this research tends to prove that Cabot played an important role as well.  ADM (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic church built in 1498

message: A very large percentage of this article is dedicated to the claims of one researcher (Alwyn Ruddock), despite the fact that there isn't much, if any evidence to support her claims. Wouldn't it be much better to stick to the essential facts, and simply provide a link to the works of this researcher in case anyone might be interested to investigate them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougP1 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is a potential problem. I have flagged it in the article; hopefully an expert might come along sometime and address the isuse. If you're knowledgeable enough on the subject to fix up what needs fixing then it would be great if you did so... 86.135.27.76 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I concur this article is horrible quality wise and confusing as well.  It may be better to just delete the thing and start over.  Encyclopedic content must be verifiable not so and so thinks maybe just perhaps this and this might be so.  As Charles Barkley would say this article is turrible.24.56.27.63 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: If you find the article confusing, that may be because research in this field is in a state of flux right now, with major discoveries being made in the last few years. It is also because the whole business about Alwyn Ruddock's claims do make it difficult to assess what really happened. These problems are not readily resolvable, however. As for the issue of whether there is too much emphasis on Dr Ruddock's claims, I can only note that, right now, there are about eight people in the world doing serious research on John Cabot. These are myself (Dr Evan Jones, University of Bristol), Margaret Condon (University of Bristol), Dr Heather Dalton (University of Melbourne), Dr Francesco Guidi Bruscoli (University of Florence), Prof Peter Pope (Memorial University, Newfoundland), Dr Edoardo Giuffrida (State Archive, Venice) and Dr Juan Gil / Prof Consuelo Varela (University of Seville). Of these, the research of at least the first five is being guided, in great part, by evidence about what Ruddock appeared to have found. And this evidence has been used to relocate a number of documents that Ruddock clearly did find and which confirm her claims - the most recent (Oct 2010) being the discovery of Cabot's bankers. All these new finds should be published, in formal academic publications, within a year. I guess the question is, then, should Wikipedia be based purely on material found in refereed academic publications? Or is it worthwhile to include information about the latest findings in the field as well? If one does the latter, it should clearly be on the proviso that claims that are not fully referenced to formal academic works are clearly flagged-up as such. On the other hand, I think that this has been done in respect to my own contributions to this article. Moreover, where discussion takes place that does not refer back to refereed publications, there are at  newspaper articles and University websites. These can be used by the reader to judge whether or not the claims have been made by authorities in the field. I am not sure if one can do better than this, if a Wikipedia page is to remain an up-to-date account of the current state of knowledge about a subject.
Evan Jones (University of Bristol)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan T Jones (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very exciting work and new interpretations, but I think the article has too many details sourced to primary documents, when some material has appeared in published secondary sources. While the University of Bristol website project: The Smugglers' City", seems very interesting, not all sources in primary documents need to be shown. I think there is too much relation of details to primary sources as used in the Smugglers' City project. Williamson wrote a widely accepted book in 1962 that at least summarized major findings and conclusions. I have moved some of the primary sources into the External links section, and tried to focus sources in the body of the article on secondary, published ones. Cabot has been accepted as the first European explorer to North America after the Vikings; that is not dependent on Ruddock's claims or new findings. But, have also noted that the Dictionary of Canadian Biography has been updated based on The Cabot Project at U. of Bristol, and added Hunter's general interest book of 2011 on Cabot and Columbus, also making use of new research.Parkwells (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

text: (cont'd)I understood that some of the primary issues of Ruddock's claims were related to Italian financial involvement in the expedition, the role of the friar accompanying the expedition (and theoretically founding a church site in Newfoundland), King Henry's scale of funding of the expeditions, and Weston's role as first Englishman to lead an expedition to North America (likely in 1499). The potential significance of these get lost in the insistence on sourcing so many details to primary documents, as if every detail were being discovered in the 21st century. I have tried to clarify consensus issues and identify new material being discovered/documented. Parkwells (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of article 

message: There currently appears to be substantial flux in the area of Cabot-related scholarship.  Given that flux, what is the current consensus (if any) on the extent of Cabot's claim on behalf of the English Crown?  The entire Western Hemisphere?  Some smaller territory?  Does anyone know the exact wording of what was claimed? NorCalHistory (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extent of Cabot's claim? 

message: Is there any evidence that Cabot had any correspondence with Christopher Columbus concerning their discoveries?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TepidTangent (talk • contribs) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Columbus 

message: This seems to be a remarkably spiky talk page, so I'll just note my point and move on. :)
The claim in the lead that The official position of the Canadian and United Kingdom governments is that he landed on the island of Newfoundland hardly seems to be supported by the text.  The closest we get is a mention that his voyage was celebrated there in 1997 (the source for this being a picture of a memorial on the German wikipedia).  This seems to me to be far from the same thing: firstly, it's highly dubious whether governments can be said to have official positions on questions of historical fact at all; secondly, a decision by Foreign Office or Queen's Household flunkies as to where to celebrate an event is neither here nor there.  If there are any organs of government capable of issuing positions on historical facts, it's not them, and they may perfectly well have decided on that location just because it was as good as any other, not necessarily the 'one true' location. HenryFlower 04:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, something really needs to be done about that sentence. The "official position" reference dominates the lead section, and gives the casual reader the impression that the claims are widely accepted by historians, which is not really backed up in the article proper. It needs to be explained how those governments came to such an "official position" (and indeed why they have an "official position" at all), and what bearing this has on the likely validity of the claims. At the same time, the lead section needs to give a wider and more balanced summary of opinion, which will enable readers to quickly gauge how much credence modern historians and experts give to the claims. 81.159.107.204 (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too was brought here by the bizarreness of that line, which makes it sound as if the Canadian and UK governments are citing John Cabot's landing place in some kind of ongoing territorial dispute. 70.26.114.223 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Official position' of governments? 

message: I read that in the first sentence of main introduction after the English name "John Cabot" it is reported the Venetian name "Zuan Chabotto": It should be substituted with the more correct Italian name Giovanni Caboto, as his nationality is actually considered Italian and because it also is the only name with which he is known in Italy. Just like happens for all other Italian personalities like Columbus/Colombo etc... 
The local Venetian name could of course be added, but as an additional information, maybe in "Name and Origins" section, besides the other language names. Paolo  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.200.99 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Name 

message: Hi, please revert the edit here. The birth date has already been put back, but the copying and pasting of a paragraph into a random position, that makes no sense within the flow, has not. Thanks.
86.160.217.154 (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed. 86.160.82.222 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2014 

message: :John Cabot (Venetian: Zuan Chabotto; c. 1450 – c. 1499) was an Italian navigator and explorer whose 1497 discovery of parts of North America under the commission of Henry VII of England is commonly held to have been the first European encounter with the mainland of North America since the Norse Vikings visits to Vinland in the eleventh century. The official position of the Canadian and British governments is that he landed on the island of Newfoundland.
This is confusing because Newfoundland is not the "mainland" of North America. 86.160.217.154 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not "mainland" 

message: Category:Persons of National Historic Significance (Canada)
75.80.129.37 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —  (e • t • c) 22:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014 

message: Historians have proposed Cape Bonavista and St. John's (present-day Newfoundland (island)|Newfoundland]]); Cape Breton Island (Nova Scotia); as well as Labrador (Canada) and Maine (United States) as possibilities.
Requires a '[['
93.155.221.148 (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protected formatting error 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Cabot. 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/20150908095237/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/John-Cabot-Bristol-s-explorer/story-11239202-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/john-cabot-bristol-s-explorer/story-11239202-detail/story.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20150424133701/http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2014-04-17/article-3692324/17th-century-coins-unearthed-in-Carbonear/ to http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2014-04-17/article-3692324/17th-century-coins-unearthed-in-Carbonear/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817001046/http://www.cabotoclub.com/history.html to http://www.cabotoclub.com/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I assume this is supposed to be the Garonne? Funnyhat (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mouth of the "Bordeaux River"? 

message: The lead says he died circa 1500. The infobox says 1498 to 1501. The section on his death said "He was last mentioned as a member of an expedition led by his son Sebastian in 1508-1509". That  a year ago. I don't know Italian, but reading Chrome's translation of the source, it doesn't sound like there's any suggestion John Cabot was involved in Sebastian's expedition and the "obscure and contradictory" bit is about whether the information about the ships' progress refers to John's 1498 expedition or Sebastian's 1508 one. Indeed it goes on to say of the 1508 expedition "It is certain that the protagonist of this expedition is Sebastiano, and that from now on his figure enters a bright light, obscuring his father's."
For that reason I've deleted the death section and instead added "It is not known if Cabot died during the voyage, or returned safely and died shortly after." to the section on his final voyage, just before the discussion of Alwyn Ruddock's view that the expedition returned. I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted anything, and am happy to be corrected or overridden. Mortee (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death