Talk:Juan Díaz de Solís

Untitled

Isn't this a duplicate article of Juan Diaz de Solís? - User:Dimadick

Has been fixed. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

---

juan diaz de solis was the captian of the first ship for the Spanish that reached the [Y]ucatan p[eninsu]la - 69.118.205.45 (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Juan Díaz de Solís reached Río de la Plata but named it "Mar Dulce" (Sweet Sea) or something similar.

Yes, although it was renamed the Río de Solís in his honor, until Sebastian Cabot popularized the idea that it was the Río de la Plata. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the people involved in this entry don't want to bother to correct the obvious error that Solis was Spanish. He was born in Portugal and defected to Spain due to problems with the Portuguese Crown. The references in the article are all old and wrong, except for Toribio de Medina who got it right. It does Wikipedia's reputation no good to have wrong headed, incorrect, amateurish articles. And even more so when someone who knows points out the error and it is ignored. This is a shamefully incorrect article. But is Wiki doesn't care, why should I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.109.243 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I changed some things - Diaz de Solis was not Spanish. He was a Portuguese working for Spain from 1504. I added some references. It still needs quite a bit of work and verification. Damndirtyape

From the Spanish Wikipedia article, it seems that Solis was certainly Spanish, and he might have been born in Portugal or not. It also seems that he sailed for Portugal and left them for French pirates because the money was better, and only later did he sign up with the Spanish crown. It would be interesting to assess how authoritative is the lone reference given, which BTW is by an English author, who has historical reasons to favor Portugal over Spain. elpincha 13:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia article is wrong. He was not Spanish. There are various primary sources in the Archivo de Indias of Seville referring to him as 'The Portuguese Juan Diaz de Solis'. He was born Joao Dias da Solis in Portugal, and moved to Spain from Portugal in 1504. If you want to verify this, go into the Archivos Españoles en Red. There are many digitized documents relating to Diaz de Solis from the early 1500s. Whether the reference was by an English author is neither here nor there, and it is plain ridiculous to assume that he has some agenda favouring Portugal over Spain. Moreover, Stevenson was a respected cartographic historian, and such allegations have never been hurled at him. You seem to be a lone voice on that one. If, however, you can claim to be an authority of repute yourself, go right ahead and say that - if you can back it up with evidence. Damndirtyape —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.5.35 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Juan Díaz de Solís was born in Lebrija, Andalucia, Spain. Regarding the name controversy for the Río de la Plata, it should be noted that it was also known as Río de Solís for some years (see Journal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3. (Jul., 1960), page 240 [1])Asterion^talk 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally accepted by whom? Evidence is scant and there is no real evidence that he was Spanish. Again, have a look at primary sources.

---

Confused as to why the article has been reverted to the Spanish version when dda certainly seems to have the best of the argument above. In any case, if someone could add a REDIRECT to this page from Juan de Solis, it'd be appreciated. It's currently missing. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Díaz is not a middle name. Family name, including paternal and maternal surnames, was Díaz de Solís. Nonetheless, it does not hurt to cover all possible mispellings in the title. Regards, Asterion^talk 13:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which was my point. Spanish names can be crazy long. Doesn't change the fact that people will search the English wiki for Juan de Solis if they forget the Diaz. -LlywelynII (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Wrong wrong wrong. Evidently whoever controls this page wants Wikipedia to spread wrong information. All sources cited are far too old to be credible, with the exception of Medina who got it all right in 1897. Solis was a Portuguese who became dissatisfied with Manuel I of Portugal and defected to Spain. This is very clear as a previous contributor pointed out. But some blockhead with a fixed and wrong idea won't correct the entry. Sad that Wiki has to put up with people who think they know but don't. Disgusting in fact.98.225.109.243 (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC) A writer who knew what he was doing would follow the most reputable and modern experts on the matter. Not old and outdated sources. Two undoubted experts are John Parry of Harvard who wrote The Age of Reconaissance and Samuel E. Morison of Harvard who wrote European Voyages to America as well as the classic English bio of Columbus. Since neither is Portuguese or Spanish they are free of nationalistic bias. Both state without modification that Solis was Portuguese by birth although he worked in Spain and sailed for Spain. Your amateur writers need to wise up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC) If your writers knew more they would know that there is a village in Portugal, Sao Pedro de Solis, from which Joao Dias probably took his last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Very ignorant article written on the basis of very old sources only one of which is still useful (Medina) and ignoring much more recent work by eminent authorities. Typical of Wikipedia where naive amateurs rule and make the decisions to the detriment of those who know more. And then Wiki has the gall to ask for money. Why give money to an outfit that prizes ignorant amateurs over knowledgable professionals? Solis, moreover, was NOT the first European to find the Rio de la Plata. Esteban Froes preceded him:4.– Estevan Froes (o Flores) es importante además porque hasta hace poco tiempo se consideraba a la expedición de Juan Díaz de Solís como la primera armada europea en llegar al Río de la Plata en 1516. Al parecer el dicho Froes estuvo cuatro años antes en el mismo río durante la expedición portuguesa que iba al mando de Diogo Ribeiro, terminando bajo su dirección al morir éste a manos de los indios. A su vuelta a Portugal, con los navíos en muy mal estado, Froes se refugió en la isla Española donde fue preso por españoles, de ahí que tengamos noticia de sus quejas en la carta al rey de Portugal. La citada carta fue descubierta por Varnhagen en el Archivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo de Lisboa y un fragmento de ella dice así: «[S]eñor, no quieren dictar sentencia, ni recibir la prueba de lo que alegamos, o sea, que vuestra alteza poseía estas tierras hace más de veinte años y que ya Juan Coelho, el de la Puerta de la Cruz, vecino de la ciudad de Lisboa, ya había venido por donde nosotros vinimos a descubrir y que vuestra alteza estaba en posesión de estas tierras...» [Versión española de Laguarda Trías] (Laguarda 76). Véase de Rolando Laguarda Trías, El Predescubrimiento del Río de la Plata por la expedición portuguesa de 1511-1512. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

He didn't "defect" to Spain because of dissatisfaction or more money. He defected to Spain because he was wanted for murder in Portugal.  :) At least that's according to the commentaries of Afonso de Albuquerque. "João de Solis" was assigned to pilot Albuquerque's ship, the Cirne in the 1506 India armada commanded by Tristão da Cunha. But Solis murdered his wife and fled to Castile two days before the scheduled departure date (April 5, 1506), forcing Albuquerque's ship to remain in Belem for a few more days while awaiting assignment of a new pilot from the royal offices. Eventually, tired of waiting, Albuquerque appointed his ship's master, Diogo Fernandes Pereira, as the new pilot. (Quote from Comentarios: Port, Eng). Whether this João de Solis is the same person as Juan Diaz de Solis isn't certain. But what is the likelihood of two prominent and well-trained pilots named "Solis" serving both Portugal and Spain in this period, with the timing matching the records in both countries? (Of course it doesn't clarify Solis's nationality in either case; but it was customary for Portuguese commentators to refer to the nationality of foreign pilots, and no comment is made here.) Walrasiad (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A letter from the Portuguese ambassador João Mendes de Vasconcelos to King Manuel in 1512 states unequivocally that Juan Diaz de Solis is Portuguese, and is the same person who is Piloto Mayor of the Casa de la Contratación. Source: Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo, Alguns documentos do Archivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo açerca das navegações e conquistas portuguezas (Lisbon, 1892), pp. 262 – 263. A 1517 decree from the Spanish court also lists Díaz de Solís as a Portuguese. Again, no doubts here. Source: ‘Juan Díaz de Solys, Portugues’. Archivo General de Indias, INDIFERENTE, 419, L.6 ,F.602R-602V, ‘Orden a los oficiales de la Casa de la Contratación’, 21 January 1517.

Can we PLEASE stop having this argument? He was Portuguese, not Spanish. The sources that list him as Spanish are old, and greatly in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.157.78 (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not "unequivocally". The 1512 Vasconcelos letter (at least the copy I found in Navarrete, 1829: v.3 p.127) doubtlessly does say he did prior work for the Portuguese Casa da India. But it is ennervatingly unclear about his nationality - I say ennervating, because Vasconcelos does assert explicitly his friend Joao Anriques is Portuguese ("ele e a mulher sao portuguezes"), while not making a similar statement about Solis himself. Likely, is not "unequivocally". Or maybe you're referring to a different letter? Walrasiad (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the decree of 1517? Is that also unclear? Do you not believe that either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.66 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't been able to track down the 1517 decree. It'd be helpful if I could read the original. Or perhaps you could transcribe the relevant passage? Walrasiad (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's digitised on Portal de Archivos Españoles (pares.mcu.es), and the reference is: ‘Juan Díaz de Solys, Portugues’, which is stated clearly (well, as clearly as 16th century script can be!) on the fourth line. The exact document number is: Archivo General de Indias, INDIFERENTE, 419, L.6 ,F.602R-602V, ‘Orden a los oficiales de la Casa de la Contratación’, 21 January 1517. It's a pretty short document referencing his activities in the Rio de la Plata and some complaints from the Portuguese. I think I was referencing another letter from Vasconcellos in another book of printed primary sources. I listed it on the article page at the bottom. I'll get back with the exact reference when I locate it. In any case, I think the new change at the top of the article about his uncertain origin is certainly an improvement on the old version insisting on his Spanish origin. Sorry about the snippiness of my previous comment, BTW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.66 (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputed tag on 6 Sep 2023

Per vars (more recent) sources listed in Pinzón–Solís voyage, the date given in this article for the voyage to Yucatan seems to be mistaken. – Asdfjrjjj (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)