Talk:Amerigo Vespucci/Archive 1

Article name & ship
Insane Unknwon should be moved back to Amerigo Vespucci with a disambiguatino block at the top. Also shouldn't Amerigo Vespucci (ship) be listed under somethink akin to (but oviously not) RMS Amerigo Vespucci. Mintguy, 10:44, 6 Feb 2004


 * Yeah, the disambig block at the top had occurred to me. Cretainly would have been easier. However, "Amerigo Vespucci" is amon sailing ship buffs clearly a refernce to the ship, and not in particular to the person. Also, the ship is so well-known that many people will intuitively identify the name "Amerigo Vespucci" with the ship. I believe it's an eponym, and I thought moving the person to Amerigo Vespucci (explorer) and making an up-front disambuguation page was more appropriate.


 * As to the page title: I know the ship project wants to use these "RMS foo" names, but then, they are more concerned about modern-era warships. (Or so I gathered.) The classical sailing ships are, however, known by their names in the first place &mdash; at least today. I do not think anything would be gained by moving it either to something like "Italian schoolship Amerigo Vespucci" or "Amerigo Vespucci A5312" (A 5312 is its Italian Navy number).


 * Lupo 11:20, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Oh, and BTW, I added your sig above.)

Well this is a general purpose encyclopaedia not a sailing ship spotters book and for 99% of people who have heard of the name Amerigo Vespucci we're talking about the explorer not the eponymous ship. See Julius Caesar for a similar example. Mintguy (T) 21:27, 6 Feb 2004

I also agree that this should be moved back. Most links to Amerigo Vespucci will most likely be for the explorer, not the ship. --Minesweeper 23:05, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Letters
A nice fact to add would be when the letters started circulating. What are the earliest known versions or dates for references to them? Rmhermen 16:39, May 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dates added. Nurg 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know if the letters can be found online? All i could find was this http://slought.org/content/410241/, but the text is not readable. Fuelbottle | Talk 02:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Henry
Is Amerigo an Italian version of Henry? -- Error 03:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The Henry page says that Enrico is, so possibly, but I don't know how relible this information is... Gady 15:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Enrico is Henry, but I suspect that Arrigo and Amerigo are alternate forms. Aymeric was an Occitanian name, probably related. -- Error 00:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have seen that Amerigo is the Italian form of "Amalric" and that therefore the English equivalent is "Emery."

Ardric47 03:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While reading about an unrelated subject earlier today, an appendix in Cokayne's The Complete Peerage implied that Haimrich, Emery, and Amerigo are all the same name. Ardric47 05:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Genoese
Amerigo Vespucci March 9, 1454–February 22, 1512) was a Genoese merchant, navigator, and sea explorer who voyaged to and wrote about the Americas.

why was Genoese removed? --Melaen 12:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why, but shouldn't we also remove "navigator" and "sea explorer"? There seems to be no certain evidence that Vespucci really knew how to navigate, or indeed ever commanded a ship, much less an expedition. He certainly was on the voyage of Hojeda in 1499, and probably also on the voyage of Coelho. But perhaps as no more than a gentleman volunteer, or supernumerary. His real claim to fame is his book, in which he asserts that lands across the Atlantic are a new continent, rather than part of east Asia.

Also, his alleged celestial longitude determination of 1499 is known fraudulent. Since this is accepted uncritically elsewhere, I'm going to set the record straight.

Keithpickering 2 March 2005

fraudulent claim?

 * Vespucci claimed, in a letter to Lorenzo di Medici, that he determined his longitude celestially on August 23, 1499, while on this voyage. Amerigo was the great explorer of balls But his claim is clearly fraudulent, which casts more doubt on Vespucci's credibility.

why is this 'clearly fraudulent'? just wondering. (clem 20:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC))
 * I agree, this needs expansion. Kundor 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 17-March-2007: I have changed the text to "might be fraudulent" plus footnote about identifying stars on horizon at continental shelf (no ocean swells/waves). The opinions of letters as "fraudulent" open debate: see below . -Wikid77 16:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alberigo
I've heard that his first name originally was David Livingston. Anyone here know if this is true? --k


 * Who knows. It has claimed that his real name was "Earl"

Named after Emeric of Hungary?
After the 1930s Hungarian expats in the U.S. started to claim that Vespucci's parents named him after Emeric of Hungary. Thanks, nyenyec &#9742; 15:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the information in this article reliable?

 * I'm not sure. The claim that "....his letters led Martin Waldseemüller to name the new continent America" is contentious. See Martin Waldseemüller & Naming of America.


 * Also "His exploratory journeys along the eastern coastline of South America convinced him that a new continent had been discovered, a bold contention in his day..." Very bold, at least without some explanation. The article as it is, while noting controversy surrounding his reputation, simultaneously invites us to marvel at it, without it being clear why. Curious...
 * Hakluyt bean 01:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read extensively on the subject, this article needs to make it more clear it was highly probable at least two of Vespucci's voyages may have been fictitious. He was a famous elaborator and was predominantly motivated by his desire "to be famous for many an age". He reworks the material in the familiar letters which give an obvious impression of falsity in the Mundus Novus and Lettera to Piedro Soderini. This article appears to be eulogizing him, perhaps because his name was adopted as the title of a certain country???

VP, Cambridge

What I do not understand from reading the article, if all or some of the voyages are exaggerated or even fraudulent. Then who actually discovered that South America extended further south? Or was Vespucci's claim just a lucky guess and that happened to be true? Otherwise he would have had to have first hand knowledge or heard second-hand about someone else making that discovery in order to make such a claim. Chaozu42 (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Impacto sobre o descobrimento do Brasil!!!
why was pickle seergrthedg vvvvgfevfsdfgffffffffffffffffffffffweeeeeeeeeeeeeeesfdrad

Hojeda
Who's this Hojeda bloke? Jooler 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It's Alonso de Ojeda. Nurg 07:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vespucci's name
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/americaname_01.shtml

According to the above article, and indeed an episode of QI I caught a while ago, the name of America is not constituted from the clasically taught facts. It is according to the above research, of Welsh origin.


 * Indeed it's the most logical etymology, but turns out all the naming of America theories are imperfect. See the naming of America and Richard Amerike for more info :) Hakluyt bean 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also known that Vespucci changed his name after being to the New World from Alberico to Amerigo and was a bit of a charlatan and had Waldseemuller include his name on his classic map by request rather than by right. The Americke theory not only has the most logical etymology it's documented by John Cabot, Spanish documents confirming the discoveries by the Bristol sailors Americke bankrolled and customs rolls in Westminster Abbey regarding payments to Cabot. Later versions of the Waldseemuller map, after protestations, called the New World Terra Incognita but the damage had been done. The evidence is for Americke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.204.196 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Someone vandalized this but I changed it.--Sir james paul 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Too smart to be true
17-March-2007: Vespucci could be that smart? The tone of the article before 2007 seemed to imply Vespucci claims were exaggerated or "obviously fraudulent" because Amerigo Vespucci would be too smart to be true (?). The references need to be screened: the existence of Eratosthenes, Plato+Archimedes, Galileo, Bach, Mozart+friends, Tchaikowsky, Isaac Newton, and Einstein+Mileva have shown that some people/pairs are "too smart to be true" but are. The article states that Vespucci and another cartographer (Juan de la Cosa) sailed together on the first voyage. The synergistic intelligence between the 2 cartographers (people who "see" the celestial equator running through "Orion's belt") might be difficult for some to comprehend, even in the 21st century. Note that Cleopatra VII spoke 7 languages, and her astronomer Sosigenes fixed the Roman calendar to handle leapyears for almost a thousand years: "Many heroes lived before Agamemnon" (some ancient people were much smarter than thousands today). all of this is true.

i love usher

That article about Amerigo Vespucci triggers overall concerns about the reliability of the whole reference base about Vespucci. I have added a footnote to explain finding "longitude celestially" by charting horizon stars, at sea along the continental shelf, but the entire article seems iffy and in need of overhaul. -Wikid77 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Catalan
I heard in a couple of places that Vespucci was Catalan and that his real Catalan name was Aymeric Despuig or Aimeric Despuig. Those sources, however, aren't anywhere near what Wikipedia and myself consider reliable.

The Catalan Wikipedia and Enciclopèdia Catalana gives his name in the regular Italian spelling.

Still, i'm curious - is there any ground to that claim? Or is it just a legend developed by Catalans who go too far claiming that Spanish, French and Italian historians intentionally diminished the role of Catalans in the history of Europe? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Amerigo
Amerigo is my person for my explorer for my 3rd grade project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.120.221 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.31.126 (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Amerigo is mentioned in the Steppenwolf song "Monster". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.111.92 (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nacionality
Nacionality Italian ?, Italy it´s not a country in 1500, Americo, ask and optain Spanish nacionality, before to board an Castilian Ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.7.244 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: Remove redundant text
Under "Expeditions":

"Vespucci's expeditions became known in Europe after two accounts attributed to Vespucci were published between 1502 and 1503.[8]

The expeditions became known in Europe after two accounts attributed to Vespucci were published between 1502 and 1503.[8]..."

Redundant. Please correct. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.203.26 (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Rather a lot of plagiarism in this article
Large portions of this article appear to be cribbed directly from the New World Encyclopedia article on Vespucci at http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amerigo_Vespucci. Earwig's results can be seen here:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Amerigo+Vespucci&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newworldencyclopedia.org%2Fentry%2FAmerigo_Vespucci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjl72 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discovered by Columbus?
Is there any reason that this article says that the New World was discovered by Columbus? Columbus's own article clearly states that he is "Sometimes thought of erroneously as the discoverer of the New World". Czar Baldy Bald IV (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I remembered of the lecture he said that Vespucci had landed in South East coast of modern time US years before Columbus and didn't knew it. After his people left and went back to Spain to report their finding Columbus then landed on America soil. According to Dr. Fernandez-Armesto Vespucci didn't even charter the boat, he was merely a helper. I don't remember much of the details, you can look up Dr. Fernandez-Armesto's book for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.217.239 (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you're right that Vespucci set foot on mainland America before Columbus did....but so did I! See ironically, Columbus himself never actually visited the mainland. But as someone who has also read all of Vespucci's letters and personal journals (which is way less impressive than it sounds, he didn't actually write that much lol), I can tell you that Columbus' voyage definitely came first.
 * As for his position on the ship, Vespucci was more than just a "helper"...ehm, probably. Actually, his exact position is not quite clear from the existing evidence. In my undergraduate thesis I argued&mdash;pretty convincingly, I must say&mdash;that his actual job title was something akin to "Chief Scientist".
 * --Xiaphias (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both explorers were Italian, and both traveled on spanish ships on behalf of the spanish government so such a dispute would be driven by interest on countries to claim the discovery which is not the case. Common knowledge sets Columbus arrival in 1492 on today's Haiti, and Vespucci first enrollment in the navy wasn't until 1499 according to the wiki italian article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcnegron (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its first discovers were of course its indigenous people themselves. While it's true that Columbus' arrival was predated by that of the Vikings, they fact that they unknowingly set foot on this continent, never told anyone, and then forgot about it is typically regarded as little more than an interesting historical footnote.--Xiaphias (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Afaik Columbus is still considered to have rediscovered the Americas (after the Vikings). I've occasionally seen the mentioning of other European ships reaching the Americas earlier, but as far as I can tell that's mostly fringe and none of that has been really accepted by mainstream historical scholarship. But independent of the case of other Europeans arriving slightly earlier, it was Columbus trip/"discovery" and none other that lead to widespread knowledge of the Americas in Europe and the subsequent colonization.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * aff it is not important who was the first to reach the americas...because none of previous voyages (real or alleged) had ,has or will have consequences,an impact on history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 098765987667m (talk • contribs) 08:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * None of your opinions (real or alleged) had, has, or will have any consequenses on our article unless accompanied by reliable sources.
 *  Spinning Spark  11:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Columbus nor amerigo Vespucci discovered anything new. Racism tends to influence the use of terms like "Columbus/vespucci discovered ____" Now if we want to be accurate we could indicate that the first Europeans to land in ____were Columbus and Vespucci but even that is flawed, since the Vikings had been in America many years before. I mostly agree with you Kmhkmh re the Vikings, but I don't think most editors of the original article are for accuracy at all. --172.56.12.250 (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason Columbus thought that America was India was because he didn't know that the New World existed. In fact, at that time, many thought that what is now America was part of Asia. So he though the could simply go southwest and eventually get progress. And before the Panama Canal was dug. So what we know is:

So much nonsense. " ...didn't knew it" is illiterate. Columbus's first landfall in the Western Hemisphere was not on Haiti, but on the island of San Salvador in the Bahamas. Columbus thought he had arrived at an island off the coast of Japan. He never understood as long as he lived that he had happened upon a "new world". He went across the Atlantic on the latitude of the Canary Islands since that was at the time the dividing line between the Spanish and Portuguese spheres as determined by the Treaty of Alcacovas in 1481 and he needed to stay out of the Portuguese part. He was able to know the latitude, roughly, of where he was. At the time longitudes could not be determined with any accuracy. Attempts are made from time to time to discover someone (from Europe) who arrived in the Western Hemisphere before Columbus, but these have been shot down and the issue is pointless. The discovery of the Western Hemisphere that had consequences for history was that of Columbus, period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be made more clear what geographic area the voyage encountered. The North American continent was never established as landfall in any description. However, it is widely implied as the source of numerous name associations of not only for 'USA' but also the indigenous population 'American Indian' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:8988:E859:ED65:DCF4:AA2C:5714 (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

“Vespucci set foot on mainland America before Columbus”?! It’s claimed only in the “Lettera al Soderini” – in the original “Partimmo di questo porto (e la provincia si dice Parias)” and there isn’t any other document that can prove that this voyage was real. (excepting “Frammento Ridolfi”, but there it is only mentioned and in addition – the letter most probably has the same author!), Columbus without any doubts visited the mainland - he did it during his third and fourth voyage. And finally - I “has also read all of Vespucci's letters and personal journals” - in the italian from the beginning of the XVI-th century.

Kmhkmh’s “it was Columbus trip/"discovery" and none other that lead to widespread knowledge of the Americas in Europe and the subsequent colonization” and I should add “The Columbus project and energy to realize it” Dino Rediferro (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth date + year
Authorities seem to disagree on Amerigo Vespucci's birth date and even year.
 * Catholic Encyclopedia (from New Advent): "A famous Italian navigator, born at Florence, 9 March, 1451"
 * Britannica: "born 1454?, Florence"
 * Encarta: "He was born on March 18, 1454 (or possibly 1451) in Florence"
 * James A. Canaday, THE LIFE OF AMERIGO VESPUCCI: "Amerigo Vespucci was born on March 9, 1454, in Florence"
 * Modern History Sourcebook: "born in Florence in 1452"
 * Amerigo Vespucci, by Frederick A. Ober (on Gutenberg): "Amerigo Vespucci was born in Florence, March 18, 1451"
 * About.com, by Matt Rosenberg: "Vespucci was born in 1454"

The current Wikipedia article adds to the confusion. The lead says "Amerigo Vespucci (March 11, 1454 – February 22, 1512)". The infobox says "Born March 18, 1454, Florence, Italy".

Is there any way to resolve this? Are there any reliable sources for the dates "March 11" and "March 18"? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC) In fact he was born on March 9th of 1454 (see Bueno again, p. 8). The correct name for his mother was Lisa de Andrea Mini (see Bueno, p. 8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional Reference
This article should be edited to add a reference to a recent article in Smithsonian Magazine:

Komowkwa (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Toby Lester, "Putting America on the Map", Smithsonian, Volume 40, Number 9, p. 78, December 2009

Important reference not cited: Consuelo Varela Bueno, Amerigo Vespucci (Madrid: Anaya, 1988). She is impartial on the topic and a great scholar of Columbus and New World discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC) In fact the whole article should be dumped and rewritten by someone who can read Spanish and who uses the concise and 100% reliable little book by Bueno. It would be informative and clear and accurate and not full of confusions and nonsense. Other references should be added:

G. Caraci, Questione e polemiche vespucciane, 2 vols., Rome, 1955.

F. A. Varnhagen, Amerigo Vespucci. Son caractere, ses ecrits (memes les moins authentiques), sa vie et se navigations, avec une carte indiquant les routes. Lima (Peru), 1985.

H. Vignaud, Americ Vespuce (1451-1512) Paris, 1917. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction
Vespucci died from malaria in Seville in 1512. He died on February 22, 1512 in Seville, Spain, of an unknown cause. These two sentences contracdict each other. I don't know which is correct, but the page needs a correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.157.65.194 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed this "???The previous subsection states the cause of Vespucci's death is unknown..." from the article. It is not the place to put such comments. This is the correct place to do that. If you know which is correct then make the change, otherwise make the comment here and someone who does know the answer will edit it into the article. Nick Beeson (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Bueno says the cause of his death is not known for sure, but she suspect he may have died from the plague that struck Seville in 1510 since when he made his will in 1511 he says he is very ill. (Bueno, p. 100). This article should be rewritten by someone who reads Spanish and follow the concise but utterly reliable short bio written by Bueno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
Why does the introduction not include the most important fact about Vespucci, that he was the first to suggest that a new continent had been discovered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.184.11 (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow good point. Not sure how this was overlooked for the past 18 months but I've rectified it. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot else neglected in this article. Vespucci went to Paris in 1478 as secretary to his uncle, Guido Antonio and was the writer of the correspondence (as much as has been preserved) of this embassy. It was in Paris that Vespucci met Bartolome Colon, the brother of Christopher, who was there to try to persuade the king to support Columbus's idea to sail west to the Indies. Vespucci returned to Florence in 1482 and soon became a trusted servant of one branch of the Medici family. He was in Florence until 1491 when he moved to Seville. He arrived in Seville sometime (not known exactly between 10 November of 1491 and March 10th 1492. He went there to straighten out some mercantile matters for the Medici whose agents had made a mess of things. We do know that Vespucci met Columbus without doubt in Barcelona when Columbus on his return from his first voyage gave a report to Ferdinand and Isabel. Vespucci was also there and from then on the two became close friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

“who first demonstrated that Braziland the West Indies did not represent Asia's eastern outskirts”.

Vespucci never demonstrated that tne new discovered territories are part of new continent. Much more – the only documents, where they are cold “new world” are “Mundus novus” and so called “Lettera al Soderini”, which the big part of the scholars consider compilations written by others. In addition in his three letters to Lorenzo di Medici and in the so called “Frammento Ridolfi” Vespucci talks about “eastern Asia”. Thus the text would be changed to “who probably was the first man to name the new discovered territories “new world” “ or something similar. Dino Rediferro (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Naming of America
The idea that the American continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci has long been held as erroneous - it most probably being named after Richard Amerike, who mostly funded Cabot's expeditions. The Article page should note this more likely theory alongside its opening gambit about Vespucci's claim - which if were really the case, the continents would be known as Vespuccia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.242 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim is not erroneus, but still the most accepted explanation for the term America (based on historical evidence). The more recent competing explanation using Amerike (there are others) doesn't seem to have gotten much traction yet and the sources used in Amerike's WP entry are rather meager, based on that I'd currently regard the Amerike thing as fringe (for now).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if Amerike is a strong candidate, but it also seems unlikely that is was named after Vespucci, simply because of the convention in place naiming after people that uses first names for Royalty and surnames for non-royals. I personally cannot think of any exceptions Dainamo (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't? I can. Plenty. e.g. Madeira, Brasil, Gold Coast, Ivory Coast, etc. are all named after products of the land. Labrador is named after its explorer. In the Vesconte de Maggiolo map of 1504/5, America was first named "Terra di Gonsalvo Coigi" ("Land of Goncalo Coelho", the commander of Vespucci's third voyage.) So, yeah, "America" was perfectly natural, given that it was a map accompanying a book of Vespucci's voyages Waldsemuller didn't stick with it, though - he renamed it "Brasilia" in his 1516 map. Walrasiad (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which of those "examples" are countries named after a non-royal person's first name?2.28.151.155 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The academic sources I've encountered have consistently cited Vespucci as the most likely source of the name "America", and none have posited another person (such as this Richard Amerike) to be a more likely candidate. My research has hardly been exhaustive in this area, but that seems to be the general consensus. --Xiaphias (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of reason to believe that Vespucci made the second voyage to Brazil from 10 May, 1503 to 18 June 1504. His nephew, Juan Vespucci testified in Seville in 1515 that his uncle had gone to Brazil TWICE. (See Bueno, p. 60). Furthermore this voyage described by Vespucci, who may have been a pilot, fits perfectly into the context of the First Lease of Brazil, from 1502-1505. The ship of the captain had a shipwreck on August 10, 1503 at the island named later Fernao de Loronha (or Noronha). The clear reason for the name was that the armadores of the voyage were the consortium that held the First Lease led by Fernao de Loronha. This voyage also established the factory specified in the First Lease at Cabo Frio in 1504 as Varnhagen says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of evidence for Richard Amerike, especially with documentary evidence slowly coming out and articles like this along with a possibility of a link to the US flag directly linked to the Amerike coat of arms which was apparently widely used long before Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.43.54.41 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)




 * I have created a new article Naming of America.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for help editing related article
This is over at the article about the cartographer that named the continent after Vespucci. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk:Martin_Waldseem%C3%BCller
 * Talk:Martin_Waldseem%C3%BCller
 * Talk:Martin_Waldseem%C3%BCller

Edit request on 4 January 2012
I suggest TWO corrections to the 1st paragraph: "Amerigo Vespucci was born and raised in the Florence, in what is now Italy. He was the third son of Ser Nastagio (Anastasio), a Florentine notary, and Lisabetta Mini.[3] Amerigo Vespucci was educated by his uncle, Fra Giorgio Antonio Vepsucci, a Dominican friar of San Marco in Florence."

1) change "in the Florence" into "in Florence"

2) change "Antonio VePSucci" into "Antonio VeSPucci"

Thank you very much in advance.

Fontanitum (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The article is semi-protected, thus I cannot edit. Please, add the italian pronunciation according to the IPA as follows:. --87.17.9.51 (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Grave / tomb
Where is his grave / tomb ?


 * Unknown. There is even some debate over where or when he died. (most assume it is February 22, 1412, at Seville).  In his will, Vespucci noted that he wanted to be buried in the graveyard of a Franciscan church in Seville, ideally in the church of the family of his wife, Maria Cerezo. Unfortunately, we have no idea which church that is or even if that plan went through (his will  seems to suggests he anticipates the Franciscan friars might have problems with that).  There is a tomb by the altar of the church of Santa Maria di Ognissanti in Florence with his name (picture at commons), which tourists often assume is Vespucci's.  But that is actually the tomb of his grandfather, also called Amerigo Vespucci, who according to records died on July 5, 1471 (as you see reflected in the date there).  The Ognissanti was the Vespucci family church, and they donated a lot to it, and several family members are buried there.  But to our knowledge, Amerigo the navigator, isn't there.  Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean 1512, right? He was buried in Seville in a Franciscan habit. This was popular at the time and in fact both Queen Isabella and Columbus were buried clothed in a Franciscan habit (see Bueno, 100). Vespucci wanted to be buried in the mausoleum of his father in law in the Church of San Miguel in Seville. But we cannot be certain he was buried there since the edifice was destroyed by fire early in the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Havin rear that I withdraw my proposal - which was erroneous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1028:F8:C01B:263B:85C6:3F6A (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Naturalization
Could someone update. Vespucio was naturalized Castilian on April 24th 1505. pg555("obtuvo carta de naturaleza en Castilla por Real cedula de Toro"). (notice: It was not possible to be naturalized spanish at that time because Spain was not a kingdom) He was naturalized Castilian by Ferdinand in gratitude for his services. (See Bueno, p. 68). He went to work for the Casa de Contratacion in 1507 and in 1508 was made Piloto Mayor of the Casa by the regent Ferdinand of Castile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.202.17 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Amerigo Vespucci
does anyone know anything about Amerigo Vespucci please help me and my class mates we are doing a power point about this person please help us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F700:1:BE:B4A1:1C2:6FE9:1363 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Help us how? Can you be more precise? Walrasiad (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the answer here is for you to read the article and then do your own homework. We do not do your projects for you here, and in any case this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not improvements to your cousework.  If, after reading the article, you still have questions you could try asking at our reference desk.  Spinning  Spark  17:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing infobox entry - edit request
The Nationality entry in the infobox (nationality = Italian, Florentine) needs to be removed as it is anachronistic and confusing. No Italian nationality existed at the time. Furthermore, "Florentine" currently redirects to the city of Florence rather than to the city-state of the Republic of Florence. The clearly worded birthplace entry is all that's needed here imo: "birth_place = Florence, Republic of Florence, in present-day Italy". 86.168.48.247 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, I decided to only do a half-fix, so that nationality is now "Florentine (Italian)", directed to the Republic of Florence.  Nonetheless, I decided to retain the term Italian (but in parenthesis, and linked to "Italian people", the ethnicity, rather than the state). It might be helpful for schoolchildren who might see him referred to as "Italian" in their schoolbooks and think they are contradictory. Walrasiad (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying and I appreciate your reasoning: "Italian people" is correct and admirably clear, imo. 86.168.48.247 (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarify geography, please?
"About 1499–1500, Vespucci joined an expedition in the service of Spain, with Alonso de Ojeda (or Hojeda) as the fleet commander. The intention was to sail around the southern end of the African mainland into the Indian Ocean.[8] After hitting land at the coast of what is now Guyana, the two seem to have separated."

How did they get from trying to round Africa to hitting land at Guyana?

Magpie54 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing, and it doesn't look like this has gotten any better in the four years since your comment. The account of this voyage in the article on Alonso_de_Ojeda is here: Alonso_de_Ojeda and indicates they set out deliberately for South America. The claim that they were headed for Africa cites a book by Edmundo O'Gorman called The Invention of America (1961). Can anyone comment on whether this book actually makes this claim, and what evidence it cites? --Saforrest (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2014
t

He died of malaria, not of an unknown cause

71.180.95.17 (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 16:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Soderini letter
" the rediscovery in the 18th century of other letters by Vespucci, primarily the Soderini Letter, " The letter to Piero Soderinji was published in c 1505. Something is garbled here..--Wetman (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This whole article leaves a lot to be desired. But I see the intention of the original editor was to indicate that the 18th C. manuscript letters cast doubt on the published Soderini letter (see the Magnaghi thesis note at the bottom). Quick fix made. Walrasiad (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Super Continent
The introductory paragraph uses the phrase "super continent" incorretly and should just say "continent" 67.137.147.133 (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've unlinked it. The target article is clearly not relevant, but the term is clearly used in reliable sources with the meaning used in this article as is shown by the number of gbook hits for Eurasian supercontinent.  Spinning  Spark  00:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand II of Arago(r)n
Only a minor edit in Final Years:

[...] made the pilot major of Spain by Ferdinand II of Arago r n [...]

i.e. remove the extra erroneous 'r' in the name of the then regent of spain and link it to the already existing page about him.

Donik (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅: . G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Bad article, does not fulfil its purpose
The sole reason for ascribing this man importance is that he realised that America was not Asia. However, the article makes no clear indication as to the source of this notion, or how Amerigo supposedly established the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.31.113 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's true that the article should make this clear, but Amerigo is also important as an early explorer, as is John Cabot etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a terrible article
As a non-historian, the very first paragraph is incredibly perplexing. I understand that it's incredibly fun to write things in an elitist manner to exclude people who aren't peddling the same trade as you. But it won't fly here.

If the article is not overhauled, I will initiate the process of replacing it with a stub until a better one is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ECCF:FC00:D545:7B23:9F:B9B3 (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you not understand exactly? Maybe you can read the same article at Wikipedia in simple English. Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The article as a whole is badly written, but replacing it with a stub would be unacceptable, of course. Part of the problem is that it is hard to nail down the facts about Amerigo. Nevertheless the information could be presented more clearly and in a less confusing form. For example, there are two separate sections, one called "Expeditions" and one called "Voyages". The dates given are confusing, and it is unclear when he stopped working for Portugal and started working for Spain.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Amerigo Vespucci. 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/20100328011335/http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/canaday.html to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/canaday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318030557/http://www.loc.gov:80/preserv/tops/france-easton.html to http://www.loc.gov/preserv/tops/france-easton.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324053652/http://hos.ou.edu/galleries//01Ancient/HeroOfAlexandria/1575/ to http://hos.ou.edu/galleries/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016
Could somebody add the Death date and age template to "|death_date = February 22, 1512" to "|death_date  = {death date and age|1512|2|22|1454|3|9}" to show Amerigo Vespucci's death age? 108.45.29.72 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

108.45.29.72 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Amerigo Vespucci. 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/20100328011335/http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/canaday.html to http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/canaday.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Verbatim quote?
I removed the text "(for other hypotheses, see the footnote in the introduction)" from this article, in the section "Historical Role" right after "... prevalent view." Such a parenthetical statement seems like a sure sign that somebody copied and pasted from a book without looking closely. I don't have the book in question, but certainly someone needs to ensure the Historical Role section is making its verbatim quotes clear (and not using too many).

Dranorter (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2016
66.168.204.138 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC) amerigo vesspuci named maerica.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC

In a pickle
"Jeopardy!" tonight says he was nicknamed "the pickle dealer", for supplying ships with pickled goods. If anybody can source it, add? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  23:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No. It was not a nickname, but derogatory slander. It was a mean-spirited term made up by Ralph Waldo Emerson to denigrate Amerigo Vespucci. In an invective-filled passage in his English Traits, Emerson hurled out a stream of abuse against Vespucci, calling him a "liar", "thief", "dishonest", and accused Vespucci of never rising in rank above a "boatswain's mate" and being merely "a pickle dealer from Seville" who never sailed anywhere.  Of course, this is not true. Unfortunately, poor Vespucci has been subjected to four centuries of repeated and sustained character assassinations by fans and enthusiasts of Columbus, miffed that the continent ended up named "America" rather than "Columbia", taking their frustration out by impugning Vespucci's character and achievements.  Emerson got caught up by their ill-minded propaganda, and Emerson's own popularity allowed the "pickle-dealer" allegation to spread. Walrasiad (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

No map?
There is no map of Vespucci's voyage rout on wikipedia? If it is so, please make the map. The map is very important.--Propatriamori (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No, there is no map because all of his voyages took him to South America only. Americo never set foot on North America, and that may hurt some people's nationalism. Remember that US citizens like to ignore the fact that America is a continent, and regard themselves as the only Americans. That's like referring to Germans as Europeans, as if the French or Italians were not.

Italian peninsula / Italy
In the article Vespucci birthplace is described as "Florence on the Italian Peninsula". I suggest either to be really specific (Republic of Florence, as properly wikilinked) or to use the term Italy. It is a common mistake to think that Italy did not exist till 1861 (the year of Unification of Italy). Actually, Italy, as a common culture and ethnicity was recognized since 1200-1300. Major references are Dante ("Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello" Purgatorio, VI canto) and Petrarca (canzone "Italia mia": "Italia mia, benché ’l parlar sia indarno"). 81.114.145.37 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Vespucci and slavery and treatment of natives
Is there any reliable and well sourced information about vespucci and slavery and his treatment of natives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:8005:B810:53C:CEAD:5F57:1641 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor Correction- Text Hyperlinks to Wrong Lorenzo de Medici
Section 4.3 (Third voyage) The text reads: "On his return to Lisbon, Vespucci wrote in a letter from Seville to Lorenzo de' Medici that the land masses. . ."

Lorenzo de' Medici links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_de%27_Medici

it should link to Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piero_the_Unfortunate

Reasoning: The first Lorenzo was long since dead when the letter was written. Looking at the source text it appears the "Lorenzo Pietro Di Medici" mentioned was the son (Piero the Unfortunate), even though he had been deposed from power for 7 years or so at the time. Considering that it may have been meant for the grandson Lorenzo di Piero de'Medici is possible, but he was only 9 years old at the time of the voyage, so this seems unlikely. Jslimak (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Could it be a reference to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici? &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * We have an entire article at Amerigo Vespucci Letter from Seville that makes the same claim - that the letter was sent to a man who died some 8 years earlier. Oh dear. The full text of the letter  says it was written to Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici.  I've therefore fixed both articles. Fish +Karate  12:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2019
The article states "Vespucci first demonstrated in about 1502 that Brazil and the West Indies did not represent Asia's eastern outskirts as initially conjectured from Columbus' voyages, but instead constituted an entirely separate landmass theretofore unknown to people of the Old World."

Please change ‘people’ to Europeans.

This is an apparently small correction, but I suggest changing the word ‘people’ or the phrase ‘people of the Old World’ to ‘Europeans.’ The statement or suggestion that Brazil and the West Indies was unknown to all peoples of the Old World is clearly erroneous, if the Old World implies Africa, Asia and Europe. To be accurate, these locations were generally unknown to Europeans. However, they were, of course, well known to Africans and Asians, both of whom had visited and were already present, in large numbers, in these land masses.

See, for example: Ryan, Morris, National Geographic Creative, National Geographic Magazine, “To Walk the World,” December 2013, Volume 224, Number 6, pgs, 31-47. Van Sertima, Ivan, They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America (1976 & 2003) Imhotep, David, The First Americans Were Africans (2011). Anthrodn (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Not done: It's academic consensus shown by DNS that the first Americans were not Africans. I can't see the claim in your first source but the other sources are WP:FRINGE. Also note that our article Old World says "he term "Old World" includes those parts of the world which were in (indirect) cultural contact from the Bronze Age onwards, resulting in the parallel development of the early civilizations, mostly in the temperate zone between roughly the 45th and 25th parallels, in the area of the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, Persian plateau, Indian subcontinent and China." Again it's the academic consensus that these civilizations were not in contact with the Americas. However, it might be reasonable to add the obvious caveat about the Norse reaching North America. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life (section)
Does the section "Personal Life" have any purpose or validity? Would it not be better to incorporate its contents into the section called "Background"? That's what the comment actually is. And it fits in with the discussion of Vespucci's family. No need to create an excess of subsections, with content which is only trivia and tangential.

--Vicedomino (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Which name?
If he is to be referred to by one name, shouldn't it be Amerigo, not Vespucci? I.e. not "Vespucci had settled permanently in Seville", but "Amerigo had settled..." The concept of last name as we know it barely existed. No one would call "Lorenzo de Medici" "Medici". He was Lorenzo.

Anyone disagree? deisenbe (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style calls for using the surname after an initial introduction of the full name. The vast majority of articles in Wiki use this standard. We call him Columbus, not Christopher; Newton, not Isaac; Washington, not George. All his biographies and references refer to him as Vespucci. Not sure why you made this change first and then asked after the fact. Should be reverted asap. Glendoremus (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That was extremely annoying to repair. Please don't do something like that without discussing first. Walrasiad (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad to see that the change has been reverted. Family names did exist in 15th-century Florence and were extremely important to their citizens. They were rigidly transmitted from father to son (women changed their last name when they married into another family) and the bearers of the same last name formed what was called a consorteria. This was very different from practices elsewhere, for example in Spain, where people chose their last names in a rather loose manner. --Hispalois (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)