Talk:Santa María (ship)

Makeup
What exactly is meant by the following line:

Pinta ("The painter") – this might be a reference to excessive makeup)

Who's makeup? The ship's, or a person's?
 * This is probably a pun... like the Niña. It seems clear to me that at that time the tradition was to gave ship girls names or nicknames.... Ericd 12:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's

Length
Which is the correct length?

"The Santa María was a small carrack, or "Nao" around 70 feet..."

or

"The ship was about 82 ft long, had a deck and three masts."

Do these even apply to the same ship?

I've read several sites that say 117ft or the equivalent of 36m -- double the figure given here. In fact, the only sites I have found that say 18m in length use this article as a source. Is this a case of wikipedia spreading misinformation again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8100:BACB:B0DE:FB3B:4EC7:2D4A (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, both this entry and the entry for the Pinta claim to be the smallest of the three ships. Either one of them is wrong, or they should both be updated to state uncertainty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.244.154 (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article does not claim a length of 70 feet nor does it claim that the Santa Maria is the smallest. Rmhermen (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Crew
I couldn't find any data about "Juan Meadows" ¿Where did you get the information to add him in the crew list? Please, refer bibliography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan A. Malo de Molina (talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Name Santa Maria
What is the source for the name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Milger 84.176.204.68 (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cf. Mary, Mother of Jesus. — LlywelynII  02:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, can we assume that her "original name" "la gallega" was actually her nickname? Otherwise we've got two ships named after saints and called "the girl" and "the painted one" and one ship named "the Galician" and nicknamed after a saint... 62.196.17.194 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You probably are not going to read this but I will answer it for everyone's benefit. Columbus is a big topic. There are probably hundreds of books on it, the better part in Spanish. This situation means, there are multiple theories on most facets of the topic. There are at least three different ship etymology theories, which I see are mixing up the readers. I want to present the major ones. This is taking a lot of research and all the other writers on the topic have encountered the same thing. Many of the major yankee writers have had something major to say. So what can we do here? Write the best condensed summary we can, I think. We only have a few pages to work with, but we can link to all the other articles on the topic. For now, if you look at it with a simplistic view, thinking there is only one answer to every question, you will be as confused as these contributors.Botteville (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The ships real owners
The Pinta and the Santa Maria's real owners were actually the Pinzon brothers. There is actual documentation that the 2 ships were owned by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.108.177 (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The ship's real crew
The list given by the page at present is < ! - - commented out - - > below, but needs sourcing on its discrepancies with the list found on other (non-Wiki-citing) sites. — LlywelynII  03:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Source request
"Apparently Columbus himself referred to the Santa María as both a nao and a caravel in his own journal." Eh, this is about three degrees of wrong. Columbus himself never referenced the SM by name at all. He always referred to La Capitana, the flagship. After the SM sank (and possibly even before: he didn't like the SM as much as one of the caravels), he obviously moved to a different ship. It's pretty clear that the SM was a nao and any ambiguity comes from the word "flagship", but bringing that up in the article involves OR unless we get a source. So, has anyone bothered to rebut this dubious "ambiguity"? — LlywelynII  03:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Anchor
I thought I would trawl the interweb to see if we could find a free image of the anchor - only to find 3 different anchors! The one this article mentions (displayed vertically in the National Museum of Haiti with both "spades" intact); one which was displayed at the Columbian Exhibition in Chicago in 1893 and perhaps there into the 1970s but now at a museum in the Dominican Republic (mounted horizontally on wood stand, both "spades" missing); and one with only one "spade" in La Batterie de Vallière, Haiti. So how many Santa Maria anchors are there? Rmhermen (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further and . Rmhermen (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So the most broken anchor was discovered in Haiti with a second anchor - shipped to Chicago for the 1893 expo, given to Dominican Republic for the 1992 expo. Is the second anchor the one displayed in Haiti? Rmhermen (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was also a "Columbus" anchor that explorer Edwin Albert Link discovered off Haiti in 1955 and which Haiti gave to the Smithsonian (covered in National Geographic and Life). Not sure what this one was. The Chicago Tribune mentions up to six claimed Santa Maria anchors. Rmhermen (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There was an anchor discovered in 1780 in Puerto Real (Belleville-Fournier), put in a museum in Port-au-Prince This is looking like it will take at least a parapragh in the article to explain. Rmhermen (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fred Dickson may have found Santa Maria artifacts (1967, not an anchor) A 1970 article claims ship had 7 anchors - three were found/ Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that when you go to the national history museum in Port-au-Prince (not sure the official name of that museum), they have something that they claim is the anchor of the Santa Maria. That museum was set up by Baby Doc - who wouldn't lie to us, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.113.217.22 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nina & Pinta
article dictates improper translations of these names. States La Nina as "the girl" & La Pinta as "the painted one". Nina is identified by (Greek) Anna which comes from (Hebrew) Hannah all of which translate as Graciousness or just Grace. In the Spanish context, La Nina is properly translated as The Child (for obvious reasons). The mistranslation of La Pinta is a much simpler matter. It is not necessary to reemphasize the singularity La Pinta & as such the ship is simply titled The Painted.

In other words, no. La Nina was not La Chica & La Pinta was not La Pinta Uno.

Any objections? Lostubes (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is long after these comments were written and I doubt the authors are still with WP. The aticle, however, has not been changed. This is the sort of information that should come from the professionals. Word origins can be tricky.Botteville (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Santa María (ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100430175303/http://www.evgschool.org:80/Columbus's%20Sailing%20Ships.htm to http://www.evgschool.org/Columbus%27s%20Sailing%20Ships.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Santa María (ship). 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/20150930231655/http://www.cristobal-colon.com/COLON/TESISGALLEGA/MARTHAGONZALEZ/MARTHA.htm to http://www.cristobal-colon.com/COLON/TESISGALLEGA/MARTHAGONZALEZ/MARTHA.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140514232253/http://www.history.com/news/has-wreckage-of-christopher-columbus-flagship-been-found to http://www.history.com/news/has-wreckage-of-christopher-columbus-flagship-been-found

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) 04:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Refs and what-not
I got into this because I had some pictures of the latest replica to contribute. I like to "tidy-up" an article. I found that the references were somewhat in deficit in quality - not encyclopedic, etc. and this caused some unprofessional ideas. As it turns out I appear to be going over it for format and content.Botteville (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The usual crowd of problems
The paragraph that starts "Despite the romantic legend ..." appears several times word-for-word on the Internet, as does much of the other text. I can't find it in any legitimate articles and books, which means those idiots are at it again. Excuse me idiots, I don't mean you personally are idiots, only your writing behavior. I am not going to conduct an inquisition of WP editors to accuse some unsuspecting editor trying to be nice to me. Instead I conclude the idiots are at it again. Now, this paragraph was inserted a propos of nothing into the crew section without any development. So, we don't know what it is talking about. There are requests for refs. In supplying those I will have to rewrite the para, whether it is guilty or innocent. Time moves on. You copycats can claim whatever fool thing you want.Botteville (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The conception problem transfigured
The article so far purports that the Santa Maria should be named La Santa María de la Inmaculada Concepción. I'm having trouble with this. I cannot find an encyclopedic reference to that name being used of that ship. I see our article here being copied over and over by such organizations as the Sons of Italy and Knights of Columbus and the like who are apparently willing to go to war over it. Can anyone find a reference in a historical document or a scholarly interpretation of a historical document indicating how this ship would have got this several word name, La Santa María de la Inmaculada Concepción, when ships were getting one or two words? Otherwise I will have eventually to tag it as unreferenced and then remove it, going with the name supported by the historians. We need the scholarship here.Botteville (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
I'm still researching this, but as far as I can tell there are a few serious anachronisms. Foremost is "the Immaculate Conception." There always was a concept of "the virgin Mary" going back to at least he Middle Ages. The "immaculate conception" however appears to be a nicety introduced into the dogma in the 19th century. The idea is, since CHrist had a dual nature, the spirit and the flesh, his parents must have been spirit and flesh. Here the doctrine gets more Catholic and more obscure. Adam and Eve were sinners, so we are all under the onus of their sin, called "original sin." I'm a sinner, you're a sinner, etc., just by virtue of being human. Mary also was a sinner, and Christ would have been a sinner through his sinning mother Mary (a sort of family tree of sinners) except that the Holy Spirit relieved the conception of sin. Regardless of what you may or may not beleive, this relief was not dogma until the 19th century, so there would have been no point in naming a ship of the 15th century after it. I'm removing that unreferenced nicety from the article. I will put it below in case you come up with an encyclopedic reference. Without the Immaculate Conception, Sancta Maria just becomes the more prosaic "Saint Mary," as the Latin adjective sanctus, feminine sancta, in the post-classical titular position almost always is to be translated "saint," although it can be "holy" or "blessed."

"La Santa María de la Inmaculada Concepción (Spanish for: The Holy Mary of the Immaculate Conception), or "

The construction site
The captain and owner was a Basque from Biscay. He brought several Basques with him to the expedition. The connection to Galicia is obscure. The only reference to a Galician origin is the monument claiming Galicia as the true birthplace of Columbus, an extravagence allowed by the fact that his birthplace is not known. He was raised in Genoa of Ligurian background. I'm still researching this, but Ponteveda apparently has not much chance of being the construction site of the Basque ship. Sorry. If you have solid references let us know, will you>Botteville (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The John Carroll University critic
We got an edit from an apparent first-time user at JC University, a private Jesuit University. He seems to want to downplay the Inquisition. To him I say, that was a long time ago. Are we to alter history for you? Have we not had enough of that? This is new times, let's go on. The reference I did put in goes on and on with a lot worse than what I said, and is not an isolated case or a crank. It is history. You should know, I only put the topic in because one of my sources founded a whole school of thought that Columbus and his friends were a marrano clique, and this was picked up by some rabbinical thinkers who maintain the theory. It has also been answered by such historians as Morison. At some point in the article I will be mentioning this material as relevant to the origin of the Santa Maria, not extensively I hope. Otherwise I would not get into it, and I do not think it should be an extensive part of the article. But I did put that in without a reference. Thank you for picking up on that. I encourage you to go on. If you register we can discuss it. I got no problem complying with your requests. There are plenty of references. It is only a matter of determining when one is desirable. I must say your view seems somewhat biased by your ideology as I cannot find any credible defenders of the justice of the Inquisition any more than for the actions of the 3rd Reich. Now that you've brought it up I cannot see how I can just let it go.Botteville (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hispalos edits
You made some changes under the guise of asking for references. You don't ask for references, you only make changes. Nevertheless I will give you complete satisfaction. No rush on this.
 * Line 52, the comments on the journal. Not so, this is referenced material. The reference says he did a condensation with some quotes but those are uncertain because he didn't identify when they were his and when of Columbus. Furthermore there were errors in the text as well as garbled text. That is what is says. Your view that he only added comments is completely wrong so I reverted it. If you have another reference that says something different we can expand the sentence to include both views. Otherwise you cannot replace referenced material with you own unreferenced views. It will take me a little time to get through your several changes. Patience. This is slow going on this difficult subject anyway.Botteville (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree, my edit did not improve the text. For your information, I wrote the article Fuentes sobre el primer viaje de Colón in eswiki, where I devote a few paragraphs to the different studies and theories on the so-called Diario.
 * Well, congratulations. A lot of work went into I am sure.Botteville (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Typical/classical - there is no standard or classical view. That is the problem with the study of Columbus. I had typical but that does not express it either. It seems best just to state there are multiple views. That is what the section will be about when it grinds slowly to its end. Botteville (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The / that province - all right.Botteville (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The chance meeting at Palos. Columbus did not know he was going to Palos and he arrived there unexpectedly with orders the citizens found troublesome. He did not know he was going to select one caravel himself as that was part of the agreement hammered out at the last minute. Unless he was a prophet, there was no reason to contact Cosa, he did not know where he was, and there was no time to go ship-hunting. There is no evidence that he even knew Cosa personally. All this is stated or implied and referenced in the very next subsection. The one you marked is an intro. We can't put the whole argument in the intro, then there would be two version of it.Botteville (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. The reference provided is outdated and, in my opinion, no longer reliable. More recent scholarship on the topic should be used.
 * See my overall comment below.Botteville (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Rank in the navy - "impressment" means that after it you are in the navy. It was the royal navy who was paying the men and they were all under naval regulations such as it was. The orders from the queen said that the port authorities shall provide three ships and crews, two selected by them and one by Columbus. They were not required to ask for volunteers. The queen subsequently refers to them as "in my service." How can the men have been impressed and be under the command of a civlian? Juan is called the maestre, which in the Roman navy (magister) and every Romance navy subsequently was "captain." I believe I read in Columbus' contract that he was to be an admiral - what else could he be? and I know I read he was governor of all the lands he should claim. These are starting ranks, not ranks won after long service; he did not work his way up through any meritorious service. He was placed in command, quite a different situation. But here is what I will do. I will reread the contract and place the quote in notes, provided I see I did not misunderstood. Right at the moment though I need to take a break. Back soon.Botteville (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no thing as a "royal navy" in the Spain of 1492. When the Crown needed ships for war or exploration, it rented them. Permanent military crews did not exist. Admiral (Almirante) was not a rank in the navy as we understand it today. And maestre simply meant shipmaster, with functions that are well documented and different from the captain, the pilot and the owner although the maestre could also be all those three things.
 * Well, that is interesting. See my overall comment below. But, this is the sort of thing you would have to substantiate with references. Morison's famous work (too old for you?) speaks of the Spanish navy and the service of the seamen in it. What do you think the queen means when she says "our service"?
 * Royal navy - "real" for royal is a term frequently used in the Spanish. It is used in any monarchy - the royal roads, the royal palace, the royal granaries, etc. Its use in today's democracies and nominal monarchs is rather anachronistic.
 * The 6 months - Columbus' contract specifies he shall pay 6 months in advance. The service in impressment is until released from duty.Botteville (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The translation. I do not agree that the translation is flawed. It seems to me the number of ships is equivocal. I think the best thing to do is use someone else's translation. I therefore am going to hunt one up. As I recal, the translations I looked at before said "one of your ships." I will confirm that. If there is an equivocation it should be pointed out in a note. As far as the "speculation" is concerned, if he no longer had a ship, how was he to move the grain? That should go back in. In what form however depends of what I can find for translations and commentary upon the translation. It needs a reference. I will let you know.
 * A right to export grain could be monetized without owning a ship, just by selling it to another merchant. But I am afraid that this part of the article is becoming primary research.
 * No, it is not primary research. I'm using references, so far you are not. What you are saying is either primary research or needs references.Botteville (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interruption of work. You have interrupted my work. I was going on with the other theory. That leads inevitably to the two-men theory, as it is called by a modern writer. I will put in a header signifying my intent. MIght as well relax, I'm a slow worker, but I am on this. More when I get it done.Botteville (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Crew list. It may come as a shock to you but I did not originate this document. I have not worked on crew list. When I do I expect to make a lot of changes. So for now I am not evaluating it, accepting, or not accepting. I will say, though, if you make a statement like that, you need to be citing some author's opinion. Later.Botteville (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In the article Primer viaje de Colón you can find the crew list based on the best reference, Alice Gould, complemented with some minor additions by a local historian from Palos.
 * Other people are mentioning Gould as well. I will keep that in mind when I get to it.Botteville (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello and pleased to find someone so interested in this topic. I will reply to your comments one by one but I have two main issues with the current version of the article:
 * It gives far more weight to discussing Juan de la Cosa than to the ship itself. I would propose to move all that discussion to that article.
 * It cites references such as Canova 1832, Hale 1891 and Markham 1893 that have now been completely superseded by later scholarship. They cannot be considered reliable sources any more.
 * --Hispalois (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Boteville's general reply
This section replies to Hispalos above.

"Outdated references"
In this field as in any of the liberal arts there is no such thing as outdated references. I happen to have a degree in classics. When you investigate a topic you try to read everything there is. Usually the key to ideas in recent publications are to found in older publications. Your attack on my use of 19th century publications (so far) is inappropriate. We do not distinguish references by date: you can use this reference because it is after a date, but not that because before. I encountered this point of view when I first got on WP many years ago. I was writing about an ancient topic so I was using references from any time. Some critics felt I should only be using current references. This is not a technological subject, the material does not get outdated by progress in the field. Some points get clarified in the course of time no doubt. We therefore procede with the clarification, not on the basis of date. Often the older references are the best. This is a very speculative field. Sometimes the younger references are off the wall. So, no, I do not accept your view that I should not use any references earlier than, say, some date you propose.

Modern references
You keep proposing that modern references exist but as far as I can see you have not mentioned a single one. As we are not going to drop all my references on the basis of their date then you need to start bringing out your references. So far all I have seen are your unreferenced statements with hints that this is a modern idea. What we usually do (if we are doing things right) is provide alternative views if there are any with references to that view, either in text or in notes. So far you do not offer any alternative views except a few unreferenced one-liners, as though the mere mention of it validates it. Either you are going to do this or not. If you do not do it, I cannot agree with your philosophy so your suggestions amount to asking me to get off the topic. But, the original article had only a few references and when I tried to check some of its ideas I found quite a different story. If you are going to do it, I suggest you put in more work and less complaining. I am sure you must know, references should follow the template specifications, such as cite book, cite journal etc, and include page numbers whee relevant. Let's see where we can go with this. If there is a questionable point, we need to mentions the different points of view with at least one ref each. I am taking into consideration that your first language is Spanish. If you are going to use Spanish references I would appreciate some sort of translation or a statement of meaning.Botteville (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The topic, the topic
I see what you mean about the topic. Let's consider what there was: a short article containing mainly fantasy and mainly unreferenced. What is the good of that? Is this what we are offering to students? I notice you almost seem to be trying to "get even with me" for daring to tamper with the article. The fantasy, I mean. We don't need that so I hope you are over it.

The whole topic is a very large one. One article is not going to do it. I'm putting in a section on Juan de la Cosa because it was his ship and whatever his destiny was that of the ship is tied closely to it. Perhaps though you are right. The WP way would be to distribute the material with links to the appropriate topic. There are two practical problems at this point. First of all, there is no guarantee of the quality of the Juan de la Cosa article or any other linked article. It is possible to jump from article to article without getting much done on any. I was considering moving material to other articles. I wanted to wait until I had an idea of how much I was going to say here. I am quite sure that if we decide to do that, as it looks as though we probably will, I will be switching to the JUan de la Cosa article. The second problem is that I'm not sure what would be going over yet. If you have any ideas or moves I would be glad to consider them. If you want to reorganize I would be glad to consider that. I like to try to finish what I start so if we move material to the other article I would be going there until finished with it. Juan de la Cosa is an important topic. He did the map. He deserves some effort. I look forward to your next ideas and moves, but meanwhile, please quit accusing me or original research. I never put anything in that I have not read. If the ref does not go in right away it goes in later. Actually, you're the one who likes the original ideas, which you mention without references. So there.Botteville (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

PS. Your view of the private Spanish navy and the master not being the skipper is a case in point. You sound as though you are parroting the author who proposed Columbus was a marrano. Whatever your source, if any, those are points that need references. This is a topic that need to be addressed. Was de la Cosa he captain or not? If not, why are the translators of the journal calling him the captain? Why do they call Columbus an admiral? If you are going to differ from the journal you need to say who differs and why. Unless you start coming up with references for your assertions it is hard for me to take you seriously.Botteville (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible split
This is such a large topic (Columbus was such a large historical figure) that I am considering one or more splits in the article. One might be "The crew of the Santa Maria"; another "Replicas of the Santa Maria." Let me know what you think along with any other suggestions.Botteville (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Columbus History Page
This is an Internet blog-type site by Keith Pickering. It mainly represents Pickering's view of other Internet sources, not actually all that different from Wikipedia. I find there are not a few errors in it. I would say, it is not an encyclopedic source. For example, the 87 "crew members" are presented to us as a certainty. That is not what Alice says. Though presenting to us Alice's material, he doesn't follow Alice. There is no development of the topic. What I am aiming at then is referenced material from Alice. My inclination is to move this not-quite-up-to-standard source to external links and replace the material with a developed topic. Its virtue as a link is that it points to other material of the ship, the voyage, and the ship's company.Botteville (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite needed
I realise this is a difficult request to make on an article of such length on a topic of considerable historical importance; but much of this article badly needs to be rewritten. At the moment, it's written in a rather personal, 'storytelling' style, more like a lecture than as a neutral encyclopaedia entry. The discursive commentary in this paragraph is just one example:
 * 'The application is totally speculative. Saint Mary, if that is the person referenced by the name, is a figure of reverence, not an adventuress, and could not be called the latter without an insult to the religion. Anyone who dared such a meaning in those times would not be alive for much longer; men were burned for less. Only modern pagan writers far from the fires of Inquisition might suggest that under the very noses of the authors of the Inquisition, the Don and Dona of Spain, and the staunchest advocates of Catholicism, Columbus, Juan de la Cosa and all his Basque countrymen, who were indispensable to the expedition, the patron saint of the expedition and the entire new Spanish Empire could be so insulted by a salacious ship name, and the same can be said of those who postulate salacious overtones for the Nina and Pinta.'

That might be fine for a magazine article or a popular history book, but it's really not Wikipedia style, and the same goes for most of this article. The voice of the author is far too prominent throughout it. Robofish (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree - the article is drastically under-referenced and contains a great deal of tangential detail. It reads as a magazine article. As Botteville mentions above, a split into a couple of other (well-referenced) articles would be in order to increase readability in summary style, with daughter articles for the tangents. I've cut out a whole section that is an entirely unreferenced general discussion of seafaring in the fifteenth century, and tightened the infobox.   Acroterion   (talk)   16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The current piece is also riddled with a multitude of weasel words that go beyond simple original research. El Alternativo (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost three years later, while the edit history reveals some progress has been made, this still feels like an issue. I think a large portion of the article could be made into a separate article (especially under the heading “the name and provenance of the Santa Maria”). Large portions about Juan de la Coda should be moved as well. It all sounds very casual in a way Wikipedia articles should not. And furthermore, aren’t full questions as headings frowned upon (ie “Was the historical Juan de la Cosa one man or two?”)? Eschweik02 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Juan de la Cosa
This has a lot of stuff about Juan de la Cosa which is not related to the ship - it should go to his article.

But some of it conflicts with his article. -- Beardo (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate Statements About Seafaring
As pointed out above, this article is not written in a neutral manner and often veers into speculation. A particularly bad example is "They feared going to sea, and if they did go, feared to get out of sight of land." That's a myth. Seafaring near land carries life-threatening dangers such as reefs and sand bars. Long before the compass, ancient seafarers recognized that they were safer far from shore and went far out to see using the sun, stars, and winds as a reference. Pkirvan (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)