Talk:Pedro Fernandes de Queirós

If he was portuguese, shouldn't the main name of the article be his original name in portuguese and not the spanish translation of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.74.29 (talk • contribs)

I agree, this article should be changed. Orta 01:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Done! The Ogre 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh that life were so simple as that! While acknowledging him as Portuguese, Quiros is usually known amongst English speakers by his Castilian name. See for example, the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Encyc Britannica, Encarta, specialist sites like Discoverer's Web, most of the academic articles on JSTOR etc, plus most English language academic texts dealing with pacific exploration. Apparently the reason is, a) he served the Spanish crown and was active in the Spanish hemisphere, b) surviving original documents (including those written by Quiros himself), use the Spanish spelling. c) Possibly a third reason is his marriage in 1589 to Dona Ana Chacon of Madrid, who bore him one son and one daughter. It is appropriate in my view to change back to Quiros, but Im interested in some discussion about this, and comments by others --220.253.152.38 NickM57(talk) 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When Fernandez de Quiros was born Spain and Portugal was a only country, the family was originally from Aviles (north Spain) and they went to live to Evora when was born Fernandez de Quiros, so he allways was Spanish and not Portuguese. For that reason and because he allways uses his name in Spanish and not in Portuguese, in other languages is know under his Spanish name except in Portugal where they translated.Hertzen1945 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The WP article on Scurvy makes origins of the treatment of scurvy quite clear, including the publication of the book on its treatment by a Royal Navy surgeon in 1753. The claim here that Cook "copied" this idea from Queirós is not correct and needs to be changed. It is correct that in his account of Torres' voyage, Prado y Tovar indicates no crew members were lost, a remarkable achievement given that their stores must have been exhausted by the time they reached New Guinea. The answer may lie in the extensive Spanish interaction with native people of New Guinea, but to my reading there is no direct awareness of scurvy. It is also correct that Alexander Dalrymple gave Joseph Banks a sketch map of Torres probable voyage along New Guinea's south coast. You can see a copy on page 31 of Brett Hilder's book on Torres. However, it is only one of a number of such maps Cook carried, which were often so general they were of limited use.--Nickm57 (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced reference to scurvy, added citations and links to the sources and documents that can be found online. I am still interested in others views on the issue of article name - raised above. I favour titling it by his Spanish name Quiros, to maintain continuity with most other English language sources and the documents that survive from the time--Nickm57 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Other views, anyone?

I have changed the spelling of Quiros' name to the Castilian fashion throughout, while acknowledging his Portuguese birth and name, for the reasons outlined in discussion on Dec 7 2007 above. The mention of Quiros in the article on Torres is now consistent.--Nickm57 (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the page should be titled Pedro Fernández de Quirós for the same reason, but I dont actually know how this is done, and I also accept there may be others wanting to talk about such a change. --Nickm57 (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Although Tugaworld's recent additions are helpful, it needs to be pointed out that what we now have is a WP article where the name Queirós is used interchangably with Quiros, including in the titles!! I have repeatedly asked for some discussion about this matter on this page - but to date we havent had any. English WP sees to be the only authoritative voice that can't make up its mind how to spell this man's name!!

I want to again ask for comment, rather than just revert user Portuguez change of Jan 5, 2009, who provided the short justification; "Quirós is just as a castilian translation of his name: for some time inacurelaty some words refered to him as such, but I think Wiki must follow the truth..."

I think a good starting point in the discussion is looking at what do other English language sources state. For example, in both the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Australian Dictionary of Biography on line, his name is spelt "Pedro Fernandez de Quiros". The ADB entry continues; "...born at Evora, Portugal, but became subject to the King of Spain when the two countries were dynastically united in 1580. Quiros is the Spanish form of the name..." I'm not actually able to find any English language source that consistently uses the spelling "Queirós" in the account. Are there some? I'm well aware of the modern nationalist sentiment that often drives us to revise our perspectives in history. Is this what we have here?

It seems undeniable however, that the name of the subject of this article was Quiros throughout his adult life and he was also known as such in English language accounts to this day. Except WP. --220.253.22.20 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Sorry though I was logged in.--Nickm57 (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This might be a compromise - I have maintained the Portuguese spelling of the name in the heading and introduction, but otherwise changed the spelling throughout to Quirós, as that is how English language histories today (and Quiros himself in adulthood) spelt the name.--Nickm57 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that idea, sorry. In my view we need to maintain a consistency between the title we adopt and the way we refer to him throughout the text of the article. This is a basic principle of professionalism. The issue of there being an alternative spelling of his name can be addressed and discussed in the text; but at the end of the day, whatever the relative merits the competing spellings may have, we have to choose one name and use it consistently. For now, I'm changing all instances of Quirós back to Queirós, if only because the title is currently Queirós. If, down the track, that changes to Quirós, then we should adjust the spellings within the text. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking back over this after a few years - I'm inclined to agree with you. It needs to be consistent.Nickm57 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to go by the sources. Here are is one from an academic journal (Australian Studies Centre, No. 22 (2017), p.68):

Pedro Fernandes de Queirós, in the Portuguese spelling, Fernández de Quirós in Spanish spelling and Quiros in English, who referred to the continent as "La Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" to honor the reigning House of Habsburg in Spain, note the 'i' in Spanish, since the Habsburg family name was "Austria"^[1]

In the English wikipedia, it needs be Quiros. XavierItzm (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this page because the sentences commencing: "In January, as believed, by the expedition were discovered Henderson Island and Ducie Island" don't make sense - or are very poor English.--Nickm57 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To make a correction on this segment of the article: "Quirós landed on a large island which he took to be part of the southern continent, and named it La Austrialia [3] del Espiritu Santo (The Austrian Land of the Holy Spirit), for King Philip III, who was of Austrian descent."

The name "Australia" comes from the word "Australis", meaning "southern". ^[2]

The name "La Australia del Espiritu Santo" does not refer to Austria, but means "The Southern Land of the Holy Spirit".

Farolglobal (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're misreading it. La Austrialia [3] del Espiritu Santo - the word there is not "Australia" but "Austrialia". It was indeed a reference to Austria. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If so, then why use such an idiot of a reference as The Victorian Magazine [5] of 1928?. Surely Dolly Mag would be more authoritative. When you see refs like this you know it's bollocks.27.33.247.18 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's actually The Victorian Historical Magazineof June 1929 with an article on "The Name of Australia: Its Origins and Early Use." It is still produced and the edition in question can be read online.Nickm57 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)