Talk:Juan de Fuca

The mutiny and other matters

I found something in the new link which, er, explains the reason for the mutiny on the voyage which had to return to New Spain.....in British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present, Chapter II, The Apocryphal Voyages, pp. 19-31, Ethelbert Olaf Stuart Scholefield, publ. S.J. Clarke, Vancouver, 1914 it's explained that the soldiers mutinied "because of the Sodomie of the Captaine". I note the cite for the existing passage is from the Consulate of Spain in Vancouver, who of course wouldn't want that mentioned. What's interesting as you read through Scholefield though is the utter Spanish denial of de Fuca's existence - then, though perhaps now by the Consulate's citation, haven't read it yet - and no trace of him in the Spanish Archives....but on the other hand, it's now known that much was kept secret and only in recent times have in fact the whole of the Spanish naval archives become accessible, so who knows what may yet be turned up? Point is there's a blank spot here, similar to the secrecy around Drake; to me (this is sort of OR) the wording of the account (in Scholefield, which mirrors the original by Lok) is suggestive to me that he found "the north sea", meaning the way out of the Gulf of Georgia via the Johnstone Strait...the reference to having to skedaddle because they were not armed to resist attack by "Saluages" is also suggestive, isn't it? i.e. for those who know the ethnographic history of the region and its geography....then it goes on to say that, he felt, netiher hte Viceroy nor the King/Court had any use for him, not because he'd proven the existence of the Strait, but rather it did not, and so they didn't have to worry about the risk of the English and Dutch finding it and using it; the ambiguous wording is intriguing to me, as is what might yet be found in El Escorial....all that aside, it's an interesting chapter, also about Maldonado and de Fonte and certain others, but has great detail on Juan de Fuca and how Lok met him etc.....there's other details, however, in Scholefield about politics of the time, and in particular a certain French geographer Buach whose ideas about the Strait of Anian stimulated Spain to send Malaspina to check (on what they thought they were, perhaps, already sure did not exist). As in my edit comment on the Northwest Passage article, I think the Strait of Anian could well use its own article; unless the Anian article exists and is pretty much the same thing; in which case maybe Strait of Anian shoudl redirect there, and not to Northwest Passage. Scholefield's musings on archival vs fictional reality at the end of the chapter are also very interesting.Skookum1 (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

description of the Strait

This passage "Fuca's account of sailing into it departs from reality, describing a region far different from what actually existed there" is only the opinion of the cited author; it would be better to have de Fuca's actual description.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Juan de Fuca/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is significant reasonable doubt about Juan de Fuca ever actually reaching the strait that was eventually named after him. His puported trip was not well documented and from what I've heard its existence was sort of the stuff of legend at the time that true exploration of the area began in the 1770s (over two hundred years after de Fuca's claim). Wikipedia's own article on Juan Pérez notes him as the first European to explore the area. The Juan de Fuca article, as written, cites sources that call into question the explorer's claims and I think the article itself should reflect that. Coastal49 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Greek transcriptions

I know this is right on the border between ancient and modern transcription, but (a) don't use accent diacritics in the English running text and (b) use either ancient or modern Greek transcription consistently. He shouldn't be Fokas in some places and Phokas in others. If Βαλεριάνος is Valerianos instead of Balerianos, the last name is Fokas. If the last name is Phokas, then the grandfather is Emmanouēl and the dad is Iakōbos. — LlywelynII 01:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)