Talk:Amerigo Vespucci/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2020

In the section Etymology, in the second paragraph it states- "It comes from the surname of Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci" which is incorrect. Amerigo is his given name and Vespucci is his surname. America was named after his given name and not his family name (surname). 2605:6000:1716:418:484A:34D4:6C88:402B (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• The sentence you are referencing does not appear in this article. I found it in the article United Sates and made the change there. If there are other instances, be sure to make your request in the corresponding talk page. Glendoremus (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

This is an edit request for the "Alleged voyage of 1497-1498" section of the page. I would like to amend that the letter was dated 1504 but not published until 1505, further clarify the nature of the controversy surrounding the letter with references to legitimate sources, and link other relevant Wikipedia pages. Please find below my suggested revision of the existing paragraph:

A letter, addressed to Florentine official Piero Soderini, dated 1504 and published the following year , purports to be an account by Vespucci of a voyage to the New World, departing from Spain on the 10th of May, 1497, and returning on the 15th of October, 1498. This is perhaps the most controversial of Vespucci's voyages, as this letter is the only known record of its occurrence, and many historians doubt that it took place as described. Some question the authorship and accuracy of the letter and consider it to be a forgery.[15] Others point to the inconsistencies in the narrative of the voyage, particularly the alleged course, starting near Honduras and proceeding northwest for 870 leagues (about 5,130 km or 3,190 mi)–a course that would have taken them across Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.[16]

Certain earlier historians, including contemporary Bartolomé de las Casas, suspected that Vespucci incorporated observations from a later voyage into a fictitious account of this “first” one, so as to gain primacy over Columbus and position himself as the first European explorer to encounter the mainland . Others, including scholar Alberto Magnaghi, have suggested that the Solderini letter was not written by Vespucci at all, but rather by an unknown author who had access to the navigator’s private letters to Lorenzo de Medici about his 1499 and 1501 expeditions to the Americas , which make no mention of a 1497 voyage. Notably, though, the Soderini letter was one of two attributed to Vespucci that was edited and widely circulated during his lifetime. Bg253 (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

References

 Done. I took the liberty of minor edits – see MOS:CITEPUNCT for style guidelines for citations and punctuation. TGHL ↗ 🍁 02:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

The second paragraph in 'Family and education' contains a passage, "...Girolamo entered the Church and joined the Knights Templar in Rhodes". The Knights Templar were never based in Rhodes and had been dissolved by 1312. Assuming the other details are accurate, this could only be referring to the Knights Hospitaller (alternatively known as the Knights of Rhodes or Knights of Malta).

 DoneGood catch. I confirmed with cited source (Pohl) and made the change. Glendoremus (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

UPDATES

ADD	Infobox = Website: www.amerigovespucci.com

97.76.210.20 (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The domain given is empty and adding it to the article would not provide any benefit to the reader, see WP:ELNO #1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs)

 Not done: There is no indication that this is in any way an official website of a long dead person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The user added a previous request which I removed before, which was discussed at User talk:45.3.234.214. Please see their latest response here. I won't be involved in any further communication with them involving this proposed website link. BilCat (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, there is no need to link to an undeveloped personal website. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

ctrl-f and replace 'problematical' with 'problematic'. 2601:801:300:2D90:E978:788D:6AAD:E37F (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no valid reason given for why we should prefer one over the other. M.Bitton (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)