Talk:San Miguel de Gualdape

message: Is the title of the page correct? "San Miguel de Gualdape" -- or should it be "de Guadalupe"? Google suggests the latter, but there are both variants to be found. So which is the right one? --84.164.100.19 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error? 

message: How did this poorly documented slave rebellion, of which nothing is told, get classified as "Victorious" in the table to the right of the article? Did all the slaves escape to freedom (likely to die on the island in their turn), or what? This seems absurd to include with so little data.Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think they would have died? These slaves would have came from areas where they had the ability to build canoes. They could have just left the island.DDA9912 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Too little documentation of slave rebellion

message: Thank you for this article. A lot of time was placed into it Im guessing. However - Im curious as to why Quattlebaum's book "The Land called Chicora" was not used as a reference? It has some significantly different conclusions than you have reached - chief among them being the colony name (which he refers to as "Gualdape"). He uses the recounting by Oviedo (1526) as one of his sources - quoting him as the source of the name "Gualdape". 
Oviedo is also used to help determine the location of the colony as being on the Hobcaw Barony, near Pawleys Island. Quattlebaum also refers to Woodbury Lowery's 1901 book "The Spanish Settlements within the present limits of the United States" to also do so.
Francisco Chicora is a utilized source - mostly for his remembrances of geographical or technical aspects of the expeditions though. Very little is spent on Chicora's tall tales - which are essentially discounted by Peter Martyr, who is also a strongly used source.
I say all this, because the early colonization of SC is an interest of mine.  Based on my reading of Quattlebaum Id gone with his conclusions.
Given your strong, well developed interest in the topic of the Spanish colonization of North America, and the obvious effort that you place into your research, Im guessing that you werent aware of the book. Its a readable - published in 1956 by University of Florida press. 
But if you did read it but determined it to be lacking in effort or interpretation of the various sources used then Im interested in knowing that, because I want to know the true and accurate history of my State. And if that means that I have to change my worldview as a result of someone elses research or efforts then so be it.
Thanks again for the effort that you have placed in this topic.
VicCarpenter  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicCarpenter (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  location and Name 

message: Every source I've reviewed spells the name of the colony as San Miguel de Gualdape. Hoffman, Lowery, Weber, and Quinn spell it Gualdape. Most of the sources cited in the article spell it Gualdape. Douglas T. Peck in Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón's Doomed Colony of San Miguel de Gualdape speculates the name refers to the Guale Indian tribe of the region. I propose we rename this article.  Any concerns? Glendoremus (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although most modern scholars seem to use "San Miguel de Gualdape", The Encyclopedia Britannica calls it "San Miguel de Guadalupe". I would not be opposed to the name change, but I think the article should include a note explaining that both spellings are still used. Carlstak (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose to rename

message: Is Quejo the same person as de Quexos? 24.155.130.236 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quejo?