Talk:Christopher Columbus

Tribute system punishment: hands being cut off by Columbus's men (FALSE)

The claim that Columbus cut off the hands of natives who didn't pay the gold tribute is not supported by the historical record. This article states that it was written by Bartolome De Las Casas, but then cites Howard Zinn and Hans Koning (who Howard Zinn took his chapter on Columbus from). In fact, I can find no mention of this claim prior to Koning's book, and it does NOT exist in Las Casas's book. It is true that there was a tribute system implemented in order to suppress a rebellion and pacify the island, and it is true that Ferdinand Columbus (in his biography of his father, based on primary sources available to him) says there was punishment for failure to comply, but there is no mention as to what that punishment was. (The Life, p. 150)

Furthermore, the first mention of hands being cut off by Las Casas in History of the Indies comes on page 117-118, in the aftermath of a 1504 battle when Nicolas Ovando was the governor. Columbus was shipwrecked on Jamaica at the time in the midst of his last voyage. Here's the passage: “After the arbalast attack, Indians could only try to run back to their . . . villages, but . . . the Spaniards overcame them in no time. . . . some Indians were caught alive and were tortured incredibly to find out where people were hidden . . . The Spanish squadrons arrived in this way . . . and you should have seen how they worked their swords on those naked bodies, sparing no one! After such devastation, they set out to catch the fugitives and, catching them, had them place their hand on a board and slashed it off with the sword, and on to the other hand, which they butchered, sometimes leaving the skin dangling; . . . And the poor Indians howling and crying and bleeding to death, not knowing where to find their people, their wounds untended, fell shortly thereafter and died abandoned.” (History, Book II, Ch. 15, p. 117-8)

This claim being attributed to Columbus has spread far and wide, but when you do the digging, it all originates with Zinn/Koning. Bill Bigelow, co-director of Zinn Ed Project, actually uses pieces of the above passage to claim that this was the work of Columbus as punishment for failure to pay tribute. Both claims are false.

At the very least, we need to acknowledge that this idea of Columbus cutting hands off as punishment for not paying tribute is NOT supported by evidence from the primary source historical record, and therefore should be taken out of the article.

Here is an article that takes a deep dive into the primary source record of Columbus and his voyages, along with shedding light on some of the egregious errors of some of his proponents and detractors, including just how far Zinn goes to distort the primary sources to get his point across: https://historyinfocus.net/2022/08/23/in-defense-of-history-not-columbus/

An affair and illegitimate child are not details?

@Carlstak: Can you please defend this deletion? Strebe (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I typically have hundreds of tabs up (not all open) and apparently I got confused with the multiple tabs I had open for this article's revisions. I've restored your version. Carlstak (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for taking care of that. Strebe (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"Admiral of the Ocean Sea"

Disambiguation at the top of this article says this page redirects for "Admiral of the Ocean Sea", but it doesn't seem to do this. Since this is a hereditary title for the family linked to the title Duke of Veragua, that seems to be where it would disambiguate to, and I'd be happy to put it in - but I'm also not sure its a necessary disambiguation or honorific worth putting above his name, as there is only ever one of these alive at any one time. I'm not sure the rules around these sort of honorifics being put at the top of the infobox, but this one seems a bit both unique, obscure, and excessive to put right at the top of the article? Vbnnr (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It does redirect. The title is commonly stated when referring to Columbus: I certainly heard/read it a lot growing up. Strebe (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Are you in favor of changing information from the introduction part ?

We all know how Wikipedia works. In this case, historical figures must be presented in time context. As for Christopher Columbus, he did not live during the existence of Italy. One RS also talks about this. Given that mention of Italy is an anachronism, I suggest using information from several RS in which Christopher Columbus is presented as Genoese. Sources that say Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer are:

• J.R. LeMaster, ‎Donald D. Kummings (2013) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Walt Whitman, p. 139.
• Jon Cowans (2003) Early Modern Spain: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 28
• Médar Serrata (2022) The True and Only Bones of Columbus”: Relics, Archives, and Reversed Scenarios of Discovery. Cambridge University Press. p. 476
• Ernle Bradford (2014) Christopher Columbus. Open Road Media. p.139
• Paul Strathern (2023) The Other Renaissance: From Copernicus to Shakespeare: How the Renaissance in Northern Europe Transformed the World.
• Lawrence A. Clayton (2012) Bartolomé de las Casas: A Biography. p. 10.

Based on the above, I ask interested editors whether the introductory part should be harmonized with more RS and instead of information that ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” be changed to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”

@Oshwah: Is this Rfc still valid Talk:Christopher_Columbus/Archive_17#RFC:_on_qualifier_Italian_in_Christopher_Columbus_lead and can we officially end this issue here if it is not the same question(this Rfc)?

I would invite everyone from the previous Rfc to specifically state here whether or not you are in favor to change information from the introductory part: ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer” @Tarl N., Warshy, Glendoremus, 악준동, CarolingianCitizen, Boynamedsue, Pincrete, Walrasiad, Eccekevin, Glendoremus, Ortizesp, Machinarium, Walrasiad, Machinarium, Fyunck(click), TulsaPoliticsFan, Strebe, Boynamedsue, TulsaPoliticsFan, Fieari, and Carlstak: Mikola22 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would prefer the use of Genoese. Italian at the time was an ethnic or regional identifier, perhaps similar to "Latin-American" today. Genoese is more precise. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

btw, I have edited the RfC to present a neutral question. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• As for me, I know how Wikipedia works and in this case the only option is respect the sources which say that Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer because Italian is an anachronism. Mikola22 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page, the MOS says The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. For guidance on historic place names versus modern-day names, see WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

So the problem here is that the MOS allows for multiple options (i.e. "where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.") If we go with citizenship, then we'd list Genoese; if we go with nationality then we could list Italian; if we go with permanent residence he's probably Castilian.

Personally, I think this is a really tough case because the MOS says our goal is "to provide context for the activities that made the person notable" and arguably he is most notable for his actions that made him a Castilian nobleman, but at the same time that appears to be the least popular option. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either, which would mean that in that case it would be OR. We have what we have and the sources state that he is Genoese or Italian explorer. And in this RFC, we decide on those two options. Mikola22 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You pinged me for comment and if you read WP:OR it does not apply to talk page discussions about policy This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. It's a little rude to ping me for comment and then tell me my comment doesn't matter.

Also, We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either is just not true. Genoese is a denomyn for citizens of Genoa. Like what is the descriptor "Genoese" if not a descriptor of citizenship definitionally. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's a little rude then let me rephrase the answer. We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either that is, it is not written in the sources, and we cannot put what is not written in the sources into the article, for the simple reason because it is not written in the sources. Normally, everyone can put whatever they want in the article, but my example is that every piece of information must be in accordance with RS. Mikola22 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Backing up just a little, the sources you listed at the beginning use "Genoese" right? What does the word "Genoese" mean to you? Because when I read a scholar write "Genoese explorer" I interpret that to mean an explorer who was a citizen of Genoa and am not sure how else it could be read. Thus I'm having trouble following what you mean when you say We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either that is, it is not written in the sources, because, to me, the word Genoese definitionally is statement in the source about citizenship. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a different matter now. In which context is mentioned Genoese I do not know. I cannot tell from all the sources because it is not specifically mentioned, whether it is from the state, city, or in terms of nationality is difficult to say. One source mentions and Genoese citizenship but in the context that he is not from Italy. Mikola22 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as is. "Italian" is sufficiently correct, and conforms to common expectations of casual readers, so no WP:SURPRISE. Needs to be there somewhere, and first sentence is best place. Does not need to be mentioned again. Rest of the text can refer to him as "Genoese" specifically. Walrasiad (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  In that case, we also tell casual readers that Italy existed at the time of Christopher Columbus life which in reality is not the case. Mikola22 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't oblige us to say anything further. But, for your clarification, yes, of course, Italy existed at the time. Do you think it didn't? Walrasiad (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should not expand the discussion. I spoke in the context of the source and information which provided Ernle Bradford in first page[[1]] Mikola22 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as is. There is no absolutely correct answer, use the traditional answer. Italian is a term which dates all the way back to antiquity, so let's dispense with the "only since Garibaldi" arguments. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is. This matter has been litigated endlessly, and nothing new has been presented this time. I also object to cherry-picking; plenty of sources say, or also say, “Italian”. Strebe (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• In my view, now as in the past, the Lede should simply state: "Christopher Columbus ... was an explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa who..."

This version does not call him either Genoese or Italian, which both can always arise plenty of controversy, as we have seen here many times, but simply says where he hailed from. It is just straightforward and accurate, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me just say that this kind of wording does not exist in the sources I mentioned. These sources say Christopher Columbus is Genoese explorer. And in that sense is my question. In any case, I respect everyone's opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read the previous RfC you'd see that the question of his citizenship is not settled in the sources. All reliable sources agree that he was born and grew up in Genoa. There can be no doubt that the assertion that he hailed from Genoa is precisely what all sources are saying. The adjective Genoese (as well as the Italian) one have other implications on which the sources do not agree. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I clearly support Italian, mainly because this choice is made with most other comparable cases, and Columbus, having spent more than half of his life outside of Genoa and in service of Spain, forms even less a basis on which to do differently. Taking the example of Martin Luther, the most influential figure of the reformation; he is listed as "German", but following this method he should be "Saxon". He isn't. Despite the fact that the "German" culture in this sense was only defined by 1871, if not later. Looking at "Italian" examples: Lorenzo de Medici (Tuscan/Florentine), Dante Alighieri (Romagnol?), Leonardo da Vinci (Tuscan), or Paganini (also Genoese). This has been done with nearly all people from the HRE and present-day Italian Mainland. Similarly, many people from the former Byzantine and Ottoman Empire -s, and present-day Spain, are collectively labelled Spanish, Ottoman, or Byzantine, respectively. Notable systematic exceptions being Basque People or culturally impactful persons that are directly intertwined to their culture and nations, like Laskarina Bouboulina who was born in the Ottoman Empire; Columbus, who is often "claimed" by the Iberian nations, however did not leave a such impact on the Genoese/Ligurian cultural identity, him not even being a Citizen of Genoa.

Apart from that, the decision should base on what we think is the most relevant but also most desired information, all the while considering precision and above all validity. I assume, and I am confident many others would as well, that the information primarily looked for when it comes to Columbus' "nationality" is that he was born and raised on the appenine peninsula, thus rendering him "italian", that being an umbrella term for the nearly innumerable cultures within it. Since this is the widest of all attributes, it is sensible and even necessary to work with such umbrella terms, lest there be a risk of overspecialisation. Any risk of misunderstanding is, finally, reduced immensely in that Columbus coming from Genoa is the first information given in the proper article, a compromise which works. The nationalities given in the lead sentences and descriptions have worked out perfectly well so far; I see no need to change a working system. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Here, here! Pistongrinder (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Genoese' I would expect to be the most common descriptor among best sources - which is the only way of resolving this. Looking to other articles for some 'rule of thumb' isn't going to help much IMO. I'm surprised that Da Vinci is described as Italian (rather than Florentine), even more surprised that Canaletto is so described, since he is almost indissolubly linked to Venice. If sources are equally balanced, I don't understand the advantage of using a term like 'Italian' which is anachronistic, less precise and almost bound to be misunderstood by many unfamiliar with this period of history. 'Briton' and 'British' are descriptors going back to antiquity, but we wouldn't describe Robert Burns as a 'British poet' simply to save having to link to the more accurate geographical/cultural/political descriptor ie 'Scottish. Similarly, the states of Renaissance Italy were rivals - often deadly rivals and to 'lump them all together' using a descriptor with a different meaning at that time seems uninformative at best. I can also see the sense of avoiding a 'nationality' and simply describing him as "coming from/born in Genoa" in its place. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So you would support changing the Johann Sebastian Bach article to say he was Thuringian, rather than German? That would be a disservice to readers. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. So why should it be different in Columbus' case? It's not only about uniformity with other articles (though I think that is not completely unimportant), it's above all much more helpful and simple to go with German in Bachs and Luthers cases, as well as Italian with this one (and others). CarolingianCitizen (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Since a similar RFC was held just 5 months ago can that discussion simply be closed and this RFC withdrawn? Nemov (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a waste of time. We will not keep re-litigating this every few months till certain editors get the result they want. Carlstak (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That Rfc from 5 months ago was not closed so i don't know what the problem is? In that sense I asked the admin Oshwah is my question the same or is this Rfc relevant. And to finally solve this question. In any case, you can inform other admins to see if my question is legitimate. Otherwise, as far as I can see, that Rfc from 5 months ago mentions the issue in terms of nationality(”The question is whether that nationality should be removed as inappropriate”). My Rfc is not in the sense of nationality because the sources do not speak about nationality. So in that sense I think this Rfc is on a different basis and question. Another thing is that many editors perceive this issue in terms of nationality. But the sources do not talk about it. That's why we need a quality admin to clarify this situation. Mikola22 (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. "Quality admin"? That must be one you like. Not a good way to present yourself. Carlstak (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Any admin can do it, but that he has some experience in situations like this, considering that last Rfc has not been closed for 5 months and the same usually lasts about a month. Second, I can't moderate Rfc in the sense that I run after the editors to tell them that sources and this Rfc are not deciding on nationality of Christopher Columbus. It can be some other Rfc and RS can be presented there which talk about his nationality. The sources which are on this Rfc say that he is Genoese explorer and these sources do not mention his nationality. I as an editor cannot go beyond this information. I don't know which nationality he is, nor have I come across any information about it in the sources. That's why a quality admin is needed to set the framework of discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

sources and this Rfc are not deciding on nationality of Christopher Columbus — But that’s the core of the problem, right? The Wikipedia guidelines want the political entity that the subject is a citizen of, a national of, or a permanent resident of. The sources can say whatever they want, but leaving the significance of “Genoese” vague just because some sources do doesn’t solve the problem any better than “Italian” does. There is no clear solution because each of those ways Wikipedia lists for assigning a person to a place yields a different result. That’s why these nonstop rehashes never result in any change: there is no “right” answer. And, to parse the Wikipedia guideline even more closely, it wants us to provide context for the activities that made the person notable. When Columbus made his important voyages, Genoa was pointedly not part of the context. While Italy wasn’t, either, his mostly Iberian colleagues sometimes referred to him as the Italian to distinguish him from the Iberian crowd: they thought his Italian ethnicity was significant. We don’t have much advocacy for calling him Castilian for any number of reasons. So, while “Italian” obviously doesn’t satisfy everyone, it’s what the article has settled on for good reasons, and nothing new about this topic has, or is likely, to come along to change that. Strebe (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

But we have sources that say he is Genoese or Italian. Information from introductory part is that he is an Italian explorer. Why not respect the sources which say he is a Genoese explorer? (By the way, he himself said that he was Genoese several times.) And why shouldn't this information be in the introductory part? If something in this sense is disputed, then the introductory part of the article should not contain either of these two informations. Mikola22 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

“I can’t have it my way, so you can’t, either”? I think partial information is better than no information. I really don’t understand why some of the more accommodating proposals have not been seriously considered, such as, “Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa”. Strebe (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Finally! This is the one that solves all the problems. Just do it! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I swore to myself that I was done with this conversation, but when I saw this exchange I had to respond. "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" is a perfectly reasonable compromise, and I fully support it. That's what the RFC should be about. Carlstak (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Carlstak - You and Strebe finally seem to agree on this now, as I do. I don't think that Boynamedsue would object to this compromise either. We don't know what the adjective Genoese means in terms of actual citizenship (or not), as it has been widely discussed above. But there can be no doubt that any source stating that Columbus was "Genoese" definitely means that he was "from the Republic of Genoa, and nowhere else. As I say, if the four of us agree on this now, it can be easily implemented, and end of story, I would say. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources I cited do not mention "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa". And we know what that means in terms of rules on which Wikipedia is based. We do not decide here on our personal suggestions, but on the informations which exists in the sources. Sources say that he is Genoese explorer. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the sources say "Genoese" more than "from the Republic of Genoa", but I think "from the Republic of Genoa" is a reasonable paraphrase of "Genoese", and if it helped resolve the dispute I would have no problem with it. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you taking this Rfc seriously or are you joking? The four of you would make compromise and put information that Christopher Columbus was "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" and this information is already in the article "Christopher Columbus (/kəˈlʌmbəs/; between 25 August and 31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was an Italian explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa". Mikola22 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Taken literally, your RFC would word the leading sentence as, “Christopher Columbus was an [sic] Genoese explorer from the Republic of Genoa”. I don’t think anyone would vote for that. No, I did not look at the lead sentence when addressing this RFC (my bad) because I trusted the presentation of your proposal. I thought this was about replacing “Italian” with “Genoese” — which is what we are always arguing about here — not also about deleting “from the Republic of Genoa”, a phrase that I forgot we had already put in place as a way to avoid yet another iteration of this very tired argument. I guess it didn’t work. Strebe (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The inconsistency of the changes we're all talking about here hadn't occurred to me until I read this- can we perhaps clarify first how the first paragraph, especially the first sentence "[…] Columbus […] was an Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa." would change if we decided to do the change? I just had the idea that might be a bit helpful, before we're just repeating what has been said over and over again (there's still lots of brilliant new things coming up, but all in all I think its become rather repetitive and dragging at this point).

So to bring in some fresh wind to end this; could someone please summarise clearly and exactly what changes we are even talking about?

I guess if we have that clearly in front of us we'll have no more troubles in finding the solution to this. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The introductory information that I propose is ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. And is he “from from the Republic of Genoa” or “from Italy” etc, is not a question of this Rfc. It is possible to have a new Rfc on that issue and whether behind ”Genoese explorer” it should be written that he is from somewhere or if it will be Genoese with link to Republic of Genoa or Italy, Spain etc. Or nothing should be written behind ”Genoese explorer” That's all a question for another Rfc. We have to deal with one question at a time. Mikola22 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• (responding to ping) My preference would be to call him Genoan for a few reasons:

Describing Columbus as an Italian is an anachronism in the sense that his contemporaries overwhelming described him as Genoese and not as an Italian; Taviani(1985) provides more than 20 examples of contemporaries describing Columbus as a Genoan; and Columbus clearly considered himself to be a Genoan.

Contemporaries described him as Genoan because then, as now, it provides important context; the direction of his career was inextricably tied to his Genoese background; he learned to sail on Genoese ships, he sailed Genoese trade routes into the Atlantic and found support and connections from Genoese expat communities in Portugal, Spain, and elsewhere.

Modern biographers focus on his Genoan background and tend not to refer to him as an Italian. In fact, Morison(1974) calls Columbus a Genoan and makes the point that he was not "an Italian in the modern sense". Glendoremus (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• We can include the information in the second sentence instead of the first sentence. An ethnic Italian from Genoa who became a Castilian noble. Senorangel (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  The sources cited do not speak about ”An ethnic Italian from Genoa who became a Castilian noble.” Sources cited say that he is ”Genoese explorer”. In this sense, let's try stick to the sources, because otherwise, with this wording, we are breaking the rules on which Wikipedia is based. Mikola22 (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Dear editors, I respect everyone's opinion, but I ask you to stay on the question whether “Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” or “Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. It is very likely that the old Rfc has not been closed because there are various proposals which have complicated the closure. Accordingly, when this Rfc is closed, every editor immediately tomorrow can start a new Rfc with their question. If this Rfc is concluded with the information that Christopher Columbus was an Italian ie Genoese explorer, the new question may be whether "Christopher Columbus was an Italian/Genoese explorer" or "Christopher Columbus was an Castilian explorer" or "Christopher Columbus was an ethnic Italian from Genoa who became a Castilian noble" or "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" or "ethnic Italian and Italian explorer" or "Spanish explorer" or "Portuguese explorer", etc. And each of you provide sources which talk about Columbus in that way and we'll discuss it again. This Rfc does not address all interpretations of who Columbus was but only to the question whether "Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer" or "Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer", based on cited sources.

This is also a message to the administrators to take this into account at the time of closing this Rfc. The only opinions that are relevant in this Rfc are those which only deal with the question whether “Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” or “Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. Anything beyond that is a matter for other Rfcs. Mikola22 (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it is inappropriate for editors to discuss the matter more broadly? Is that some Wikipedia guideline that I don’t know about? You can find editors’ responses to the RFC at the top level, bulleted. You are free to ignore the rest of the text if you like. Strebe (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you can discuss the matter more broadly. This is just an information for the admins that I have informed the editors about the issue which this Rfc deals with. In the time of closing it will be easier for admins to close this Rfc because opinions which go outside the given question are not relevant and everyone is aware of that. There are other Rfcs that will deal with these other questions or other facts, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is irrelevant because it is really just a rehash of another months-old RFC paraphrased. You are not respecting other editors who've already addressed the issue at length, a conversation of which this is just another iteration. Carlstak (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully they're following this Talk Page, then. If you feel so inclined, perhaps you could tag engaged editors from the previous talk page to join this one. Where this one has already received the attention it has and where it has been five months, it seems unlikely and unrealistic to close it now. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

[...] "perhaps you could tag engaged editors"[...]. For what it's worth, the previous participants appear to been pinged when the RFC was opened. My participation has been roughly "Enough, leave it alone". This entire process smacks of WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the arguments again and again, hoping to tire out their opponents and get their way. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If this Rfc is irrelevant the administrators will tell us that. Existing edit Request and RFC ask the question in terms of the of Italian nationality and Italian and Genoese nationality. Therefore, it is clear that I am not asking the question in terms of nationality, because the sources do not use that information either. It is also unclear how someone can start RFC or edit Request using a term(nationality) which does not exist in the sources at least as far as Genoese is concerned. Moreover, not a single source was cited in the introduction of these discussions. It is actually an WP:OR question on which the editors decide whether or not it will be part of the article? This is how I see the situation as an editor, and the admin will have the final word. Mikola22 (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mikola22: "If this Rfc is irrelevant the administrators will tell us that." Administrators (as such) won't even look at this RFC until it expires or someone withdraws it. The closing might even be performed by an uninvolved non-administrator. At that point, the closing comment might say "this was too soon, the RFC should not have even been filed." I would suggest you (as the author of the RFC) withdraw the RFC, it's pretty clear this discussion is going nowhere. Next time you file an RFC, you might consider specifically quoting the statement you object to, and specifically stating what your replacement statement would be. That could reduce the level of confusion in the discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: My Rfc or question is in accordance with the sources. I put on Rfc what is written in the sources. My question is specific and it does not violate any rule. Existing edit Request and RFC which are on the talk page and which have been going on over 5 months, as I said, they mention nationality in the question, which has nothing to do with the sources, unless there are sources that mention Italian nationality, they certainly do not mention Genoese nationality, which means that it is a question which violates the OR rule and for that reason these two discussions should have been closed by admin. By the way, I saw immediately when reading edit Request and RFC(which exist on talk page) that anything and everything is discussed there and I knew immediately that this is the reason why these discussions were not closed. I see that it has started to be discussed here as well in such a way (was he Chinese, Spanish, Venetian, American, etc.), even though my question is very clear and in accordance with the sources. I don't care who he was, what his nationality is and from where he's from. My question on this Rfc is whether or not you are in favor to change information from the introductory part: ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw immediately when reading edit Request and RFC(which exist on talk page) that anything and everything is discussed there and I knew immediately that this is the reason why these discussions were not closed. My take on it is different: The RFC never came to a consensus, and it probably would not have reached a robust consensus even if those discussions had not happened. Discussing the context and alternatives is important in an editor’s decision whether to support an RFC or not. I will not commit my vote to an RFC’s proposal if I don’t even know what the alternatives are. Alternative proposals help me consider whether I ought to support the proposal of the RFC. As far as your proposed text goes, you say it is clear, but the literal interpretation of your proposal would result in Christopher Columbus… was an [sic] Genoan explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa who…. I’m skeptical you’d get any support for that. Strebe (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Information from the article, 16 February 2023... was an Italian explorer and navigator who completed.. information that Columbus is from the Republic of Genoa does not exist at that moment in the introductory part. This information at that time exists in the section, Early life.. 'Columbus's early life is obscure, but scholars believe he was born in the Republic of Genoa between 25 August and 31 October 1451'. Accordingly, information that he is from the Republic of Genoa or born in the Republic of Genoa can be part of a section Early life. The sources I cited on Rfc say he is Genoan explorer and very likely they mention and that he is from the Republic of Genoa or born in the Republic of Genoa. If RS mentions it, I don't know why it would be strange if Wikipedia also mentions this information? Or that I have to gather support for such information? Well, those sources were written by historians. If on February 16, 2023 the article contain only information that Columbus was Italian, why couldn't now be only written that he was Genoan explorer? In any case it may be a question for the new Rfc. This information has nothing to do with my question and this Rfc. Mikola22 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Because over the course of 20 years, the editors of this page disagree on exactly this point, and many of us do not understand why this is being litigated again. The current text exists as a way to satisfy both those who consider Genoa to be the better choice as well as those who believe Italian to be the better choice. I, for one, will not support a return to a state that leaves one of those two factions dissatisfied. I think it is far past the time that people should expect to get only their own favored text here. Strebe (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"I think it is far past the time that people should expect to get only their own favored text here." Amen. Carlstak (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Italian I think CarolingianCitizen hit the nail on the head. In addition to CarolingianCitizen's eloquent argument above, I submit that many reliable sources refer to Christoher Columbus as being Italian. While I understand the RSs provided above state his citizenship differently, I believe far more state "Italian." Pistongrinder (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree (and also, thanks :) ). Especially since this whole discussion has taken on a very long length and the probability I see for a new compromise being made decreases steadily. Just to remind everyone; we have a good solution as is, it literally includes both fractions without contradiction. This lengthy and polarized discussion should be ended with a status quo, I think it will come down to that anyway looking back at the last 16-20 hours. The argumentative situation strongly reminds me of the constant discussion about "Czech Republic" being renamed to Czechia; it's been discussed and retained over and over again over the last months or years. Let's avoid that happening here. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  How are sources weighed when there are many on either side? Senorangel (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I might well be wrong about this, but I figure you can't. At least not when, like in this case, one source is contradicted by another in endless back and forth. That's why I feel this discussion ought to be closed soon, but I don't want to repeat myself. Maybe something does come up to change it all.

  Another problem is that some sources will say entirely different things; we can't take these into account in this RfC and basically must ignore them. Then to decide what sources really are relevant here is naturally complicated and a bit subjective as well. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)