Talk:Thornton expedition

English version

I have translated this page from the spanish & Italian wikipedia.--Remus10 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The page is based on the book of Sanfilippo about this colony that Ferdinando I Medici wanted:

Here it is an excerpt (I can translate it, if required):

« Nei primi anni del Seicento Ferdinando I di Toscana ...valuta la possibilità di una colonia brasiliana. Il 30 agosto 1608 l’ingegnere fiorentino Baccio da Filicaia,...gli invia una lettera da Lisbona. In essa ricostruisce la conquista del Brasile e spiega le ragioni del declino della colonia lusitana. Neanche un mese più tardi Ferdinando fa armare una caravella e una tartana nel porto di Livorno e le affida al capitano Thornton. Il viaggio è in realtà preparato da tempo – la lettera di Baccio ha soltanto accelerato un programma già stabilito - e il granduca ha persino chiesto a Robert Dudley una pianta dell’Amazzonia, da quest’ultimo esplorata nel 1595. Dudley consiglia a Thornton di cercare l’oro sulle rive del Rio delle Amazzoni e dell’Orinoco. Ferdinando ordina più prosaicamente di caricare balle di merci e di fondare, se possibile, un avamposto commerciale. Thornton naviga per quasi un anno: approda in Guyana e in Brasile, esplora il Rio delle Amazzoni e l’Orinoco, rientra facendo tappa alla Caienna e a Trinidad. Il 12 luglio 1609 è di nuovo a Livorno, ma non trova nessuno cui riferire la propria impresa. Il 7 febbraio di quell’anno il granduca è morto e a Firenze non si pensa più alla possibilità di fondare una colonia o un comptoir commerciale oltreoceano. »

Sincerely, I don't see any problem with POV. It is just plain history (and nobody in the Spanish & Italian wiki has complained about). Cheers.--Remus10 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Remus10. I don't see problems with any POV. I suggest to erase the tag asap. The "Italian colonization of the Americas" by Ferdinando I Medici is well documented by scholars like Sanfilippo, Franzina and Ridolfi.--Keatingbeach (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a mistake the tag! I have just added a reference of scholar Ridolfi.--3leopard (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal of the tag. The article has a complete NPOV.--Rubinmar (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed the tag, as per above discussion. Thanks to Keatingbeach, 3leopard and Rubinmar for their support. Cheers. --Remus10 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename the article

Since the colonisation (spelled with an "s", see WP:ENGVAR) never happened and the article only refers to a speculative attempt and immigration, it should be renamed. You can't name it after something that never happened (Italy's victory of WWII, anyone?). The section on supposed "colonies" of immigrants should also go as it's more accurately covered by Italian diaspora. Single issue articles, please. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the action done by Brutaldeluxe is totally mistaken. He should have read the references of scholars like Sanfilippo. Wikipedia is based on scholar opinions and not on his POV. Even his comment about "Italy's victory of WWII" shows a bit of "hate" toward the Italians (read:Anti-Italianism).--Keatingbeach (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally: all the articles about european colonization are with "z" (german colonization, british colonization, etc..) and have been accepted without problems by wikipedia for years. Why Brutaldeluxe changes ONLY the Italian colonization spelling?--Keatingbeach (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the brutal vandalism that wants to erase the opinions of scholars like Sanfilippo about the tentative of an Italian colonization in the Americas. Thank you Keastingbeach for your support.--Remus10 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, wiki is not about opinion, but facts. The fact is that colonisation by Italy of the Americas never happened. All we have in this article is the description of one expedition. If you want to write about the opinion of a scholar, then do it in the article on that scholar. Seen as the expedition is not really that important and not much has been written about it, I'm wondering whether the article should be deleted and the expedition briefly mentioned at Colonization of the Americas. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but facts are supported by scholars like Sanfilippo, Franzina and Ridolfi.....Brutaldeluxe doesn't show any fact, only his (a bit "antitiitalian") POV: 3 scholars write about the expedition and this is not enough for him? Unbelievable!.... I totally support the article translated from Spanish/Italian wiki by Remus10.--BdLM (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the sources, I just don't believe there ever was a colonisation when the only thing that happened was ONE EXPEDITION BY AN ENGLISH CAPTAIN. Do you agree on this very simple fact? Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is enough this simple fact (supported by scholars!) to justify an article on wikipedia: this is the way every encyclopedia works. The first rule for an encyclopedia is the truth and this fact is real and supported by scholars, do you understand? If the truth has been found only a few years ago (like did Sanfilippo), this doesn't matter. Wikipedia has plenty of articles based on much less: look at the "hints" of contacts between Rome and China for example (no proofs at all, only theories...but Wikipedia has artices about). Indeed, Colonia Tovar is a german settlement of the XIX century and nobody complains about the inclusion (of this settlement in Venezuela) inside the article "German colonization in Americas"--BdLM (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Settlement is the key word here. Without it there is no colonisation. I also remind everyone that suggesting that I am anti-Italian could be seen as a personal attack (take a look at my user page and guess why). Brutal Deluxe (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there are many tentatives of settlement in the historical colonization process, as we all know, and all of them are worth to be included in an Encyclopedia. Of course they must be confirmed by academic research, not by personal POVs of wikipedian users. And Prof. Sanfilippo is renowned in Italy.--Spalatino (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

An attempt is not the fulfillment is it? Would you call George Mallory's fatal attempt on Everest "Geoorge mallory's Summit of Everest"? Another issue with the name: the colony would have been a Florentine one, not an Italian one, just like the Maritime Republics' colonies in the Black sea were Venician and Genoese colonies.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Renaming discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by another editor. Note that at the time of close, the sockpuppets in this discussion are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Brunodam. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Italian colonization of Americas → Thornton expedition — What the current article calls an "Italian colonization of Americas", similarly to the German and Scottish ones, never resulted in a lasting colony. Crucially, and unlike the latter cases, the potential Tuscan settlers never left the dock for the New World. After a brief exploration expedition by English captain Robert Thornton, and the death of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the whole scheme was abandoned. Should the article still be named 'Italian colonisation'? This article is the subject of a naming dispute, and although I opened the discussion I take no position on the matter. Deusdemona (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rename. No settlement ever occurred, at least in the case of Scottish and German attempts, they did lead to settlement, if only for a brief period. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there it is a bit of VANDALISM going on here. I suggest to calm down and ask for an admin intervention.--BdLM (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename. There is no colonization discussed here. No population, not even any land controlled. Rmhermen (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maintain. There were potential tuscan settlers and the expedition really happened, as stated by scholars. Which scholar supports the contrary? Furthermore, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia MUST show everything, even tentatives (only must be clearly stated that it was a tentative).--Keatingbeach (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maintain. Same reasons of Keartingbeach.--BdLM (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maintain.I fully agree with Remus10. --Spalatino (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be some sockpuppeting going on here. I notice not only are most of these Maintain voters new accounts with few contributions but also that on Commons, there is a category for Sockpuppets of Spalatino. Rmhermen (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked all his supposed sockpuppets and only Spalatino is posting here, but he is not banned.Anyway, I repeat we should ask for an admin intervention (or a check-up of all of us, even me, Brutaldeluxe, Rmhermen, etc..).--BdLM (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your checking is meaningless as you are not a "Check user" who can investigate user's IP addresses. Rmhermen (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My tentative conclusion is that this discussion is teeming with sockpuppets. Unless every single one of you ignoring the meaning of the word "tentative" is just a coincidence, which I believe is a bit unlikely.--Deusdemona (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This article was created by a sock of banned User:Brunodam, who is seeking to pervert the discussion by his many and various socks. Remus10 is Bruno, as are Keatingbeach, 3Leopard, Rubinmar, Bdlm and Spalatino. The whole article, and this discussion, are a sock frenzy. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here comes the slovenian antiitalian named Alasdairgreen27. What a "casual" pop up! Now it is possible to understand why all these attacks against something that would have been accepted normally, because supported by scholars (like with the 'German colonization of Americas'). Oh, I forgot: since the only caribbean tentatives of german colonization were done by private companies related to Prussia, why nobody asks for a rename to 'Prussian colonization of Americas'? Luigi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.138 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alasdairgreen27 has just written (in the talkpage of a banned user named Direktor) that Wikipedia is edited and - most importantly - administered by teenagers, for whom the niceties of encyclopedic content are irrelevant. I am afraid he is offending even administrator Rmhermen....Anyway, I believe Wikipedia is based on the opinions of scholars and not in personal "Balkan wars" against whoever doesn't agree with Alasdairgreen Slovenian POVs. --Spalatino (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that with Spalatino and his zombie army gone, we can declare a consensus of sort and move back the article. I'll leave the discussion open in case anyone who isn't here to fool us has something to say on the matter, though I doubt it.--Deusdemona (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that it came down to this mess because, while I do not agree with this title, the subject appears valid and perhaps a reasoned case could have been made for this title which would have gathered some support. Rmhermen (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is an expedition, these are usually named after the leader, the ship they employed, or the area they explored. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please note Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Spalatino, now all blocked along with the sockmaster. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

definitions of colonisation/colonise/colonised

For those who can't be bothered to Google.

http://www.answers.com/topic/colonization The act or process of establishing a colony or colonies.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/colonized 1. To form or establish a colony or colonies in. 2. To migrate to and settle in; occupy as a colony. 3. To resettle or confine (persons) in or as if in a colony. 4. To subjugate (a population) to or as if to a colonial government. v.intr. 1. To form or establish a colony. 2. To settle in a colony or colonies. colonized - inhabited by colonists

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_colonization Colonization is invading and taking over sovereignty of another area, which then becomes known as a colony. "Colonies" are then established by one or more settlements. They are inhabited by emigrants who are the colonizing power.

http://www.brainyquote.com/words/co/colonization145722.html The act of colonizing, or the state of being colonized; the formation of a colony or colonies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colonize 1.to establish a colony in; settle: England colonized Australia. 2.to form a colony of: to colonize laborers in a mining region. –verb (used without object) 3.to form a colony: They went out to Australia to colonize. 4.to settle in a colony. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but what has to do with the Italian TENTATIVE of colonization? Just write clearly in the article that it was a tentative, as the same scholar Sanfilippo does, and that is it.--BdLM (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming clear to me that some people here don't actually understand English that well.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand very well what writes Bdlm: a wiki article on colonization can deal even in tentatives of colonization, when clearly stated. You POV is totally wrong, my friend.--Spalatino (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And there it is even the problem that you, Brutaldeluxe, are a RAT that hates everything Italian.Luigi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.127.9 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming and broadening the scope of the article

While I understand that the convention for other nation-states is to use 'British', 'Danish' (et al) colonization of... as the WP:TITLE, the recent good faith broadening of the scope of the article is on the WP:NOR side of the spectrum. Such an article move and scope would require reliable sources to justify the new lede, and the inclusion of the Hospitaller colonization of the Americas under the title "Italy and the colonization of the Americas".

If reliable sources can be tabled to back up these changes, I'd be more than happy to discuss changes to the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The Golden Age of Piracy site has some text identical to this article. I am not sure whether this article is a copyvio or which article has copied the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I've compared a 2011 version of this article here, and the result is exactly the same. Golden Age of Piracy seems to be a self published site created in 2013, which leads me to believe that it was copied from Wikipedia without attribution. Even if you view the source of the page, it looks like a cut-and-paste of a Wikipedia article. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)