Talk:José de Acosta

---

Untitled

Not NPOV. - Hephaestos 07:38 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Merge

The incorrectly-spelled Josè de Acosta should be merged into this page. -AKeen 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Y (redirection).

his date of birth ( & death (deWp))

I summarize here what I've wrote 1st, at (esWp) José de Acosta's talk (es:)

• Data: esWikipedia: .. he died (working) at Salamanca University in Salamanca, 59 years old ( 1600/ february/ 15th ). Both enWikipedia + esWikipedia: the same date of death.
• He was born (enWp) September/October 1539; Category: 1539 births
• but ( esWp ), born at: Medina del Campo, at 1540; Categoría: 1539 births

1539 vs 1540

So, you can see more times, above: 1539

• But, I've calculated (...) with these data
  • death ( 15-II-1600 )
  • 59 years old (age) death
    • & (enWp) Sept./Oct. ( birth month ) to compare with february (1600)
• He was not born at 1539, but 1540. You can calculate it. And I explain better here:
  • If ( like I say ) he was born at Sept./Oct. (1540) .. he is 60 years old = at Sept./Oct. (1600), but he died at 15-II-1600 (before that month) so the age at his death: 59 years old.
• Plus ( the important argument of the date I discuss here'bout ). I've got ( a little later ) this ref. at the prologue of a modern e-book edition, of his Historia natural y moral de las Indias, to confirm the data/result, I got via the previous deduction.

It is a ref. to: Google Books ( there, you may read, almost all the book ), or buy the book.
Now I'm going to correct it. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Rest of iw. No more ideas

I've looked at the iw , and I see some of them,
like enWikipedia was: 1539/1600 years. And others are like enWikipedia is now: 1540/1600 years.
I think we haven't anything more to do with them.

An exception: deWikipedia (see it)

Another posibility (59 years old)
cfr: * 1539 ( or 1540), † 1599 ( or 1600 ) = 59 years

• When there are doubts for both: birth & death dates. When was his death 15 feb. 1600, or 15 feb. 1599?.
  • _ * september / october of 1540, † 15 of february 1600.
  • _ * september / october of 1539, † 15 of february 1599.

deWp say this with this double ref. : CE indicates year 1600, but Lexikon der Medizin 1599;

• I don't found 1599 & Lexikon der Medizin, although it maybe at : Medizin-Lexikon - gesundheit.de, or Lexikon der Medizin - LSM-Verlag
• 1600 & CE
  • CE (sources) Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/José de Acosta, the son of well-to-do and respected parents, born at 1540; died at 15 February, 1600.
  • Jose de Acosta - Original Catholic Encyclopedia. Acosta, JOSE DE, the son of well-to-do and respected parents, b. at Medina del Campo in Spain, 1540; d. = February 15, 1600

I finish, not going to change anything more now. Conclusion: the unique change (deWp) is about the possibility his death not at 1600 but at 1559. Then is important for my argument, both cases he died being 59 y's old (1539/1599) or (1540/1600). 2nd: you can see is the one I left, at my former edition. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Converso?

How could he be a converso when he was still a Jesuit after 1593 when they forbid conversos from entering the society? Wouldn't he have been expelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by HBBorges (talk • contribs)

Confusing tag

I tried to do some copyediting, but I'm not sure how much of a difference I made. I added a confusing tag because I personally found a lot of the sentences to be, well, confusing. Lots of run-ons and references to other people and events without much explanation or background. At times, it feels like some content has been translated imperfectly from Spanish. Tolozen (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)