Talk:Amerigo Vespucci Letter from Seville

Untitled

I had some quick questions about the start of the synopsis section. Does that first paragraph have sources? or do they come later in the section? If so I think we should bump them up just in case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaldridge97 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I plan on expanding this article by including a lead section. While this extending introduction takes on other aspects of various sections, it will be a smaller sample size, most importantly containing a short summary of the article's body. Aaldridge97 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Make sure to check out the guidelines for writing [[1]]. Katherine.Holt (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dnaugle21, Twu21, NeuroCoxinha, Aaldridge97, Tommy DP, Phong20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plans for improvement:

I (rem1419) will do the section of Background and Context with sections on:

-“the age of exploration” and the renaissance

-Short Biography of Amerigo

-Vespucci’s 1499 voyage

-a little about the other voyages

Potential Sources:

Amerigo:

http://www.history.com/topics/exploration/amerigo-vespucci

https://www.livescience.com/42510-amerigo-vespucci.html

https://www.biography.com/people/amerigo-vespucci-9517978

https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi43.htm

http://www.softschools.com/facts/biography/amerigo_vespucci_facts/843/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/explorers-travelers-and-conquerors-biographies/amerigo-vespucci

https://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/gwmedieval/vespucci_amerigo_1451_1512/0

https://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/thir/vespucci_amerigo_1454_1512/0

Age of Exploration:

https://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/abccliow/the_age_of_discovery/0 https://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/abcintrel/exploration_age_of_c_1400_1600/0

https://www.thoughtco.com/age-of-exploration-1435006

https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-exploration/The-Age-of-Discovery

https://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/sharpesci/discovery_age_of/0

http://www.ducksters.com/history/renaissance/age_of_exploration_and_discovery.php

https://0-search.credoreference.com.dewey2.library.denison.edu/content/entry/heliconhe/renaissance/0

Rem1419 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Good ideas for sources for anyone in your group to consider. Katherine.Holt (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I (dnaugle21) will do the section on the Description of Text. But what that exactly means, I think we should discuss the purpose of describing the text. Whether that is the language used or what not. My ideas of what I'm going to be working on is looking for the types of language used in the main reading and talking about what the author means by it. Dnaugle21 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do you mean the synopsis, Dnaugle21? Katherine.Holt (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

In our google doc for the project, we listed the Description of the Text as seperate from the Synopsis. I spoke with the TA about it and it's apparently all the publisher information and synopsis included. So I think what I'm going to end up doing is assisting the synopsis person (Tu21). Dnaugle21 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I (phong20) will work on reception/outside sources section. This section will be primarily on how the text was treated when it was written. Whether the text was considered as factual or not will be discussed. Since this letter is considered to be authentic by today’s historians, not much on its authenticity will be mentioned. Books to introduce opions on this letter are listed below.

I (NeuroCoxinha) will explore reception/criticism of the work and themes. Compiling from various sources, I will create a section which shows various opposing thoughts on the letter, all within a neutral presentational tone that does not argue for any opinion. It will be a synthesis of information that explains how critics valued the piece.

• This is longer that you probably need, but the entry for Marable's autobiography of Malcolm X has a clear presentation of the critical reception of that book. Malcolm_X:_A_Life_of_Reinvention Katherine.Holt (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Testing

This is a test.

Updates for Reception

Hey y'all,

I'm having some issues inserting these citations. Im going to list the ones for the themes section here, in order.

-More, Thomas, Saint, 1478-1535, and George M. Logan 1941. 2011. Utopia: A revised translation, backgrounds, criticism. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

-" Fernández-Armesto, Felipe. 2007. Amerigo: The man who gave his name to america. 1st ed. New York: Random House.

-WHITNEY, C. 1993. the naming of america as the meaning of america - vespucci, publicity, festivity, modernity. Clio-a Journal of Literature History and the Philosophy of History 22 (3): 195-219.

NeuroCoxinha (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE! I fixed it! Is this section alright, or was it too general to the entirety of Vespucci's works? Let me know! NeuroCoxinha (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Who was the letter written to?

It says it was written to Lorenzo de' Medici. Lorenzo de' Medici died in 1492. The text of the letter (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015003944751;view=1up;seq=104) says it was sent to Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici so have corrected accordingly. Any thoughts? Fish+Karate 12:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Name of author

If no one has any objection I am going to change Vespucci by itself to Amerigo. Not a last name as we know them today. deisenbe (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you get this idea. Vespucci is, by far, the most common way he is referred to in biographies and references. Also agrees with Manual of Style. Glendoremus (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity

The main point here is that this supposed letter was first brought to the attention of the public in 1745. Thus, here there is not only the question whether he did the voyage at all, but whether he did write the letter (which is different from the letters of 1503 and 1505, which were publicly known during his lifetime). And there are arguments that this letter is not authentic, for instance it would imply that he invented the method of lunar distances. Seattle Jörg (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)