Talk:Christopher Columbus

{{talkheader|search=yes|archive_age=1|archive_units=month|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot s

Arbitrary break on discovery

This is verging into WP:FORUM, but since the issue is to deal with revisionism, I feel it's necessary.

It's uncontroversial that Abel Tasman discovered Tasmania in 1642 (which, like the Americas, was inhabited). It's an open question whether James Cook or Ruy Lopez de Villalobos discovered Hawaii (which was inhabited), but that it was a discovery is uncontroversial; Like the Americas, Hawai'i didn't know about global civilization, and global civilization didn't know about Hawai'i. Hawaii was isolated with only sporadic contact with other Polynesian islands - after discovery, they became part of the global fuck you .

This is an article about history; for five centuries it's been uncontroversial that Columbus discovered the Americas. A more technical description would be that he discovered a viable sailing route across the Atlantic and opened the two sets of continents to mutual interaction. But the act of discovery has been uncontroversial until fairly recently. The change isn't from new knowledge overturning previous research - instead it is current fashion making it desirable to extirpate previous descriptions, because they are uncomfortable for various reasons. That does history a disservice. Columbus may have been a (expletives elided, describing someone we might wish didn't exist), but that does not remove the fact that he carried out discovery. And existing citations aren't invalidated just because they are unfashionable.

The term discovery, at its base, is uncovering knowledge which wasn't available before. Opening contact between Eurasia and America is pretty close to prototypical of the act of uncovering hidden knowledge. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How the hell does someone "discover" a place where people already live?? Clearly, the discovery of that place, by definition, must have taken place earlier. Columbus discovered the Americas as much as a pickpocket discovers someone else's wallet. 2601:602:87F:4960:0:0:0:7AEE (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No one has said anything about being unfashionable, how about good faith and avoiding politics? And yes, he discovered a viable sailing route. I wouldn't call it more technical, just more accurate. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Whether or not it was once uncontroversial, it is plainly controversial among WP:RSes today, as the sources in the previous section show. You acknowledge this yourself when you dismiss current scholarship; regardless of how we feel about them, we have to reflect what the best sources say, including avoiding stating seriously disputed assertions as fact. Therefore, we cannot say it as fact in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree completely, and the consensus here as well as in present-day academia is that language describing Columbus's voyages in the same terms used by the Catholic Monarchs is deprecated. Carlstak (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This was never settled, and the article still says he "independently discovered" the Americas, which seems not to be the consensus. The word "reached" is also an understatement, so we should explain the situation with more nuance (as it's the subject of unresolved discussion amongst scholars). I'd suggest something like: "On his first voyage, Columbus reached the Americas. Some scholars consider this an independent discovery of the continent separate from the Norse arrival to Newfoundland almost 500 years earlier. This point has been subject to debate and was further confused by the Eurocentric notion that Columbus led the first voyage to America." Then continue with the contemporary account. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Carlstak (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem as I see it: both the current wording and the new wording treat the "discovery" as it were an Olympic medal, with assigned roles for first and second and etc... I dislike the phrase "independently discovered". This of course also forgets that the nuance in the word discovery that Carlsrak added well. The problem here is, fundamentally, that what the Norse did and what Columbus did are so vastly different. First of all, Columbus opened the way not only to the far northern fringes of the eastern seaboard of North America, but initiated a contact with Central, South and North America, which soon brought the existence of the whole continent into the knowledge of Europeans (and reversely, brought knowledge of the existence of Eurasia among the native American peoples). It is important to notice that the knowledge of Vinland, which was a vague idea among the few Europeans that had it, was restricted to the idea of a small northern island, much as Greenland or Iceland. The Vatican's knowledge was to the extent that there was a bishop somewhere in the arctic, with no evidence that they knew anymore than that the Norse had setup a bishop somewhere in the arctic land (see (Diocese of Gardar for the papal documents that mention it). Interestingly, the call it in finis terrae, underlining the fact they had no idea there was anything beyond that. The maps of the time features Greeland as a small island in the north, and never feature Vinland (no map has ever be found to feature it, and the Vinland map s were proven fakes). Examples: Henricus Martellus Germanus, Fra Mauro map, Erdapfel, rather complete and accurate maps of the time, feature nothing beyond Iceland/Greenland. There is no indication whatsoever that anyone in Europe had any idea that there was another continent there, nor any indication that anyone back in Europe knew there were other peoples. This change in knowledge is really what makes the Columbian voyages different, together with their geographical scope. Secondly, the Coumbian contact was permanent when the Norse one was not, which also incedes on its scope. Thirdly, Columbus opened a way in the first place, as many followed him: in regards to the Norse, no one followed them and we have no evidence of any other European reaching America because of their expeditions.

On the other hand, the wording should not give WP:UNDUE weight on the claims that Columbus had previous knowledge of the Americas, mostly because most scholars disagree with these claims (that have been put forth almost solely by Scandinavian authors) but also because they don't really make sense, since Columbus was looking for Asia, not for a new land the Norse told him about. As Enterline points out, Columbus was collecting any scrap of evidence of land when he presented his plan to the Portugues and Catholic Monarchs, but he never mentions anything from Iceland or the Norse, which would suggest he had no such knowledge. The new wording does that, implying that Columbus voyages were based on the Norse settlements, and that some scholars disagree.

I would hence focus on knowledge. I would remove "discovered independently" and simply "brought news of the Americas to early modern Europeans". This statement is true, as Carlstak pointed out that discovery is based on the point of view chosen, and as far as we say that is was for early modern Europeans, it stay true. Certainly, the Norse did not brings knowledge of the Americas as a separate continent for medieval Europeans, mostly because indeed none of them really knew Americas existed until the 1490s in any accurate sense (refer to the maps posted, and how the Popes refer to Gardar in Greenland as "the end of the earth"). This statement is also true whether or not Columbus himself was aware it was a previously unknown land, his contemporaries quickly realized it, regardless of him. Eccekevin (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I think it is important to talks about this. @Carlstak:, you removed the quote from Dugard on "he is famous not for being the firs,t but for staying there" or something like that. I realize you probably removed it because it's not the best source, but something like it should be in that paragraph. BUt a better/similar quote or source should be find, since it is an important sentiment to include. As I said before, the scope and consequence of Columbus voyages are drastically different than the Norse settlement in Vinland, and that should be highlighted. Additionally he is indeed the first European to reach Central and South America, and that should also be included in the discovery paragraph.Eccekevin (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your critique of UpdateNerd's change, Eccekevin, even though I supported it. I must admit that I don't like the "discovered independently" phrasing either, as I indicated earlier on this page. I feel confident that we can work this out—let's see if anyone else has something to say. I agree that "the scope and consequence of Columbus voyages are drastically different that the Norse settlement in Vinland, and that should be highlighted" and that "he is indeed the first European to reach Central and South America, and that should also be included in the discovery paragraph."

Regarding Dugard, the problem is not that he isn't the "best" source, he's not a good source at all, because his book is historical fiction, not actual historiography. I agree with your statement that "a better/similar quote or source should be found, since it is an important sentiment to include". I will find academic sources to support that I should be able to do so tomorrow. Best. Carlstak (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't read the large blocks of text just above, but after I my edit was reverted I realized I agreed that calling the possible "independent discovery" a disputed interpretation is leaning into a WP:FRINGE view. However, we only cite one source that calls it independent. This was the point of the whole (now archived) discussion, which the last time I checked was in favor of using the simple terminology "reached". I haven't recently looked at the results of that thread since this new one was started. But if discussions are important, so is following the consensus of those discussions. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Oh gosh, please relax and focus on your health. There is absolutely no rush. Best wishes. Eccekevin (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Eccekevin, but I live and breathe this stuff (history) when I have time; nothing makes me feel better (well, sex does). I have books stacked all over my bedroom, but I can't stop buying more. Thanks be for Wikipedia Library access, or I wouldn't have a place to sleep. I do get a good physical workout of one kind or another almost every day, but I'm a chronic insomniac. I wake up in the night thinking about WP articles, so I may have to go to a therapist for that.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2022‎

Here's the prior discussion. I'll do a final count to check the consensus. If it favors "reached", I believe we could re-add the source that uses that language and change the wording to:

On his first voyage he reached the Americas, initiating the beginning of the European exploration ... His arrival to the Americas is thus important to ... human history writ large. Some scholars state that Columbus independently discovered the Americas, which is further confused by a view popularized by Washington Irving that Columbus was the first European to reach the continent. He was in fact preceded by Norse contact with the North American mainland by almost 500 years.

On the topic of sourcing, we should work towards eliminating lower-quality sources like Dugard and Dyson (when suitable replacements can be found). But we absolutely shouldn't use that "he stayed" quote, because it's bullshit. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's my problem with the wording you propose here and have done before: you're treating this like a clear cut competition and expecting this paragraph to declare a winner and award gold and silver medals. But history is much more nuanced and complicated. Words like first, 'discovered independently, was in fact preceded etc... are clear interpretations of the facts that call for winner and losers. In reality, history is not as clear cut and we should present only facts, and not interpretations as fact. I am here again echoing the nuance of Carlstak in his sentences on "discovery" vs. "encounter". In other words, we should lay the bare facts (Norse arrived in X around X AD, Columbus arrived in X around X AD) without having to say phrases like "the Norse discovered America and preceded Columbus, while Columbus was second but discovered them independently". These are interpretations, especially because they are based on artificial concepts such as "America", "North America", "the Americas".

And moreover, such pronouncements are often arbitrary and meaningless. Can the Norsemen really be said to "have discovered the Americas (which go from Yukon to Argentina") while seemingly never going south of Maine? Can Columbus be said to have discovered North America, never having landed there? Can an either even be said to have discovered a new continent if we have no proof either the Norse or Columbus were aware that indeed it was a continent several times larger than Europe? For all we know, the Norse could have thought they were on a second island smaller than Greenland and Columbus was convinced he was in Japan? Also, how can the Norse have "preceded" Columbus in any meaningful sense since their explorations had no overlap (the Norse were in the northern fringes of North America and Columbus never set foot in the US nor Canada)? What exactly did they precede him in? They can't precede him in discovering North America, since he never arrived there; not can it be said they discovered the Americas in any meaningful way, which would be more the claim for Columbus. The whole arbitrariness of the definition of continents (which is underlined by the fact there there are several different ways of counting them) remind us of the fact that titles such as "discover of America" are meaningless, subject to interpretation, and dependent on arbitrary and subjective definition.

Finally, why do we even need to mention the Norse here? There is a whole paragraph dedicated to the "Originality of the discovery of America" where this argument is treated with more nuance. So why do we have to insert a sentence here, which would be repetitive at best, and confusing at worst (since you phrasing, once again, seems to declare a winner".

I say we stick to the facts and not include any arbitrary interpretations. Remove "independently discovered", and simply state how the voyages of Columbus reached America and brought news of it to Europe, opening the "Columbian exchange" and putting the Americas and Eurasia in permanent and meaningful contact. No "Norse first, Columbus second" nor" Norse first, but Columbus independently". That's all arbitrary and can be dealt better in the paragraph below. Eccekevin (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You raise good points. The consensus from the other talk section would be to merely replace "independently discovered" with "reached". UpdateNerd (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I would replace with "reached and brought news of", thus keeping he importance of the beginning of the Columbian exchange, while avoiding the topic of "discovery".Eccekevin (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I'm dropping out of this discussion. I'm expecting surgery or chemotherapy in the next few weeks and am narrowing what I do on Wikipedia to focus on my priorities. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Wishing you all the best. You have been a hero on Wikipedia for many years. Do take care. Strebe (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think replacing with "reached" is not enough, because it loses the importance of these voyages in world history, as outlined above. Eccekevin (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I think it'd be appropriate to link to Columbus's letter on the first voyage as that was the initial public announcement of his successfully reaching land to the west. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In the count from the previous discussion, four registered users supported "reached". These were myself, Doug Weller, Carlstak, and Aquillion. In favor of some variation of "discovery" were Tarl N., Strebe, and Eccekevin. (Also, warshy left a side comment which used the phrase "discovery" in quotes, but didn't express a clear vote.) Eccekevin has since expressed support for the compromise phrase of "reached and brought news of". That makes it uncontroversial to go ahead and add this phrasing to the article. I'll let a reasonable interim pass before implementing the change in case anyone cares to comment further. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated above, and you agreed, the "reached and brought news of the Americas" is the appropriate substitute to "independently discovered" and is important because it underlines why this event is unique in world history. Simply "reached" cannot replace "independently discovered", because it lacks the important emphasis on knowledge of a new continent that indeed changed the world in 1492. This statement is true, as Carlstak pointed out that discovery is based on the point of view chosen, and as far as we say that is was for early modern Europeans, it stays true. "Brought news of this" is not really sufficient cause its unclear what the news is, and "early Modern Europeans" is not redundant because if not its unclear who the news was brought to (although you can propose a better wording here, there definitely could be one). Eccekevin (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He didn't bring news to anyone on his first voyage; that happened upon his return. Who besides early modern Europeans lived in Spain then? That wasn't part of the agreed wording. And I copyedited your suggestion to make sense rather than paste it verbatim. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, the return could be considered part of his voyage, it is half of the voyage in the end. The wording you used could have been ambiguous ("brought news of this" could seem to refer both to the Americas or to his voyage itself). Perhaps, something akin "With his first voyage, he reached and brought back news of the Americas to Europeans, initiating..." or "On his first voyage he reached the Americas, and brought back news of them to Europe, initiating..." Eccekevin (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That's an improvement! However, the news being conveyed had nothing to do with the voyage itself. At the earliest, it was his appearance before the Catholic Monarchs, which was followed by the widely publicized first letter. "With his first voyage" doesn't convey the facts coherently. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. So why should this sentence be only about his first voyage in the first place? The sentence before mentions all 4 voyages, and so does the sentence after it; no reason this sentence should only mention the first. The impacts described are due to all the voyages, not just the first anyways. Could do "With these voyages, he reached and brought back news of the Americas to Europeans, initiating..." Eccekevin (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The later voyages aren't that relevant. His widely published first letter is what brought news to other Europeans and triggered concurrent subsequent voyages. (To be completely objective, we could say the letter "helped" bring the news since there was also word of mouth, etc.) If anything he became less popular over his later voyages because he was such a bad governor. IMO any editorializing of the facts is what the Legacy section is for. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s still not coherent. There’s nothing in that paragraph that explains how and why his voyage was important to Europeans. It just states “He got there, and [here magic happens] this “initiated” European activity. If you don’t already know why, then this paragraph is practically meaningless. Hence my changes, which UpdateNerd summarily reverted. Strebe (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, that is not what the consensus was (with DougWeller dropping out, it's not clear there even is a majority). Simply using "reached" is insufficient, and is worse than "independently discovered". Eccekevin (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for a new discussion on an improved version which incorporates the significance of the return announcement. But the consensus from the last discussion was clear; it was just never implemented because someone improperly started this second discussion section. Let's talk about what the improved version could be, but please, let's use the current version as the status quo instead of edit-warring or even going backwards. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The current version is not the consensus one, let's be clear about that. I am sorry, but repeating it won't help. You claimed that this was the consensus because "These were myself [voting for "reached"], Doug Weller, Carlstak, and Aquillion. In favor of some variation of "discovery" were Tarl N., Strebe, and Eccekevin. (Also, warshy left a side comment which used the phrase "discovery" in quotes, but didn't express a clear vote.) Eccekevin has since expressed support for the compromise phrase of "reached and brought news of". That makes it uncontroversial to go ahead and add this phrasing to the article." I never expressed support for "reached" alone, and DougWeller has abandoned the discussion and Carlstark agreed with many statements above on the necessity of wording that makes clear the importance of this trip when it comes to the knowledge of a new continent in the eyes of Europeans, who had no knowledge of it before. So no, there is no consensus for "reached" alone, there isn't even a majority (not that consensus is a majority). Eccekevin (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's consider the old discussion moot; clearly the binary choice didn't have a satisfactory outcome. I agree that something more profound than "reached" is needed, but as soon as you say something like "independent discovery" it really needs attribution. We could say:

On his first voyage he reached the Americas; this novel contact with the continent initiated the European exploration and colonization of the Americas, as well as the Columbian exchange.

Adding "novel contact with the continent" isn't too explicit about whether it's a new "discovery" or not. Strebe's addition was all good but IMO too long; we should try to boil it down to its essence, hence the phrase I suggested above. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What makes my edit “too long”? Those were the novel aspects of Columbus’s voyage that sent Europe into a furor. I don’t think it’s good to say he reached “the Americas” — especially in his first voyage, since this implies a discovery of two continents and some change when in fact all he found was some change and no continents. Furthermore, he didn’t think he found new lands. Europe was agnostic about that but excited about the fact that he got somewhere significant and possibly exploitable by sailing west when (a) nobody knew what was that far west and (b) everyone but Columbus thought Asia was yet much further west. It it too long if summarizes the causes for Europe’s excitement and therefore for the torrent of exploration and conquest that followed? Strebe (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not the length of your prose per se, it's the placement. Too much contextualizing of "significance" veers into Columbus's Legacy, as opposed to discussing the voyages themselves. For reference, the last sentence of the lead paragraph reads: "His expeditions ... were the first European contact with the Caribbean, Central America, and South America." We ought to duplicate that info to the body, and perhaps that could be incorporated as part of the solution here.

Incidentally, if we want to discuss the significance of his first return a bit more, his widely publicized first letter opens the next paragraph. So we could mention its significance before discussing his views on whether he had visited Asia. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the inclusion of "brought news of the Americas to Europeans" or something similar is very important to supplement "reached". Eccekevin (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Although I don't disagree, the challenge is to summarize that factually. He didn't bring back the news "during" his voyage, and upon his return he was still telling people he had reached Asia, which is dealt with in the subsequent paragraph. To point out the obvious, it was really Vespucci who brought the news of America's uniqueness, hence the naming of the continent. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In it’s article on Nicolás de Ovando, Wikipedia admits that Columbus’s aforementioned successor was the one who forced natives to mine for gold and other resources, as well as plant and harvest sugar and other crops, in what was known as the economienda system. So why have they locked this article’s page, so that I and Rafael Ortiz of officialchristophercolumbus.com and other columbophiles can’t correct the falsehood about Columbus starting the system of slave labor?! Nicolás de Ovando Hector557 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't see anywhere in the article that it says "Columbus start[ed] the system of slave labor". It does say "Scholars of Native American history George Tinker and Mark Freedman write that Columbus was responsible for creating a cycle of "murder, violence, and slavery" to maximize exploitation of the Caribbean islands' resources...".

It also says, "According to historian Emily Berquist Soule, the immense Portuguese profits from the maritime trade in African slaves along the West African coast served as an inspiration for Columbus to create a counterpart of this apparatus in the New World using indigenous American slaves. Historian William J. Connell has argued that while Columbus "brought the entrepreneurial form of slavery to the New World," this "was a phenomenon of the times..."

And then we have "British historian Basil Davidson has dubbed Columbus the "father of the slave trade", citing the fact that the first license to ship enslaved Africans to the Caribbean was issued by the Catholic Monarchs in 1501 to the first royal governor of Hispaniola, Nicolás de Ovando."

All these statements are attributed to the historians who made them, and appear in quotes. None of them are stated as incontrovertible facts in Wikipedia's voice. You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is some kind of conspiracy among Wikipedia editors to suppress the "truth" about Columbus. If you add original research to the article, or make statements not supported by reliable sources per WP guidelines, such content will be removed. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

According to Carol Delaney, Columbus never owned or traded any slaves, and he never set foot in Africa. These historians are either uninformed or lying. And this article DOES say that “Columbus implemented economienda.” It also uncriticalky acceots Michele De Cuneo’s claim that Columbus gave him a sex slave.

The 500 natives Columbus shipped back to Spain were POWS that killed the 39 men he left behind. In total, Columbus took 1500 Arawak prisoner. He also “enslaved” members of the cannibalistic Carib tribe. Basil Davidson’s statement that Columbus was the father of the slave trade is ridiculous, especially since he admits Nicholas Ovando was the first one given a license to ship enslaved Africans but the king and queen! That makes absolutely no sense! If Wikipedia isn’t trying to suppress the truth, then why did they leave falsehoods in this article and then lock it. They could found factual info about Christopher, like on Rafael Ortiz’s website, which uses only primary sources, then locked it to protect it from vandals. 68.99.102.135 (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Here’s Delaney’s research. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Columbus-and-the-Quest-for-Jerusalem/Carol-Delaney/9781439109960 https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/columb Hector557 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The research of Rafael Ortiz: https://www.amazon.com/Rafael/e/B001KCXNV0/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1 Hector557 (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The article does not say, "Columbus implemented economienda." The word is "encomienda", which I've already told you elsewhere. I mean, if you can't even get that right... You seem very confused about how Wikipedia operates, and what constitutes reliable sources. Carlstak (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Namecalling is not an argument! It demonstrates your lack of intellect! I’m not confused about anything! The dishonesty and dogmatism from you and Wikipedia is clear as day! Provide proof as to why Rafael Ortiz or Carol Delaney are unreliable! Put up or shut up! 68.99.102.135 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether Columbus himself owned slaves is irrelevant to his role in bringing the slave labour system to the colonies he governed. If you have a specific change that needs to be made with a clear citation, we can make that happen. But please refrain from non-specific requests as this isn't a forum. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't indulge conspiracy theories. It's strange that Raphael Ortiz, a supposed 'expert on Christopher Columbus', refers in his blog to "...[o]ne of the articles above, written by Taylor and Francis Online", and argues against an article that appeared in the New York Post, for God's sake. His books, Christopher Columbus The Hero – Defending Columbus from Modern Day Revisionism, Columbus Day vs Indigenous Peoples' Day – The Truth Behind the Anti-Columbus Movement, and Christopher Columbus and the Christian Church – And Why He Matters to Believers Today are all self-published, and therefore they are unreliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE. I can't find any mention of his academic credentials, apparently because he doesn't have any. As far as I can see, he's a self-aggrandizing opportunist seeking to exploit the gullibility of the "Columbophile" public, especially in Italian-American associations. Carlstak (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christopher, you can tell from the titles those are rubbish. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted repeated personal attacks by this IP editor 68.99.102.135, who should familiarize himself with our WP:NOPA policy, which states, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Such content doesn't speak well of its author. Carlstak (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Jail time

Shouldn't the fact that he returned to Europe from his third expedition in chains for torturing people and received jail time be somewhere in the intro, not just buried at the bottom? Torturing people is basic information I'd want to know about anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:100:1d20::8326 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

From the fourth paragraph of the lead: "As a colonial governor, Columbus was accused by his contemporaries of significant brutality and was soon removed from the post. Columbus's strained relationship with the Crown of Castile and its appointed colonial administrators in America led to his arrest and removal from Hispaniola in 1500, and later to protracted litigation over the perquisites that he and his heirs claimed were owed to them by the crown." UpdateNerd (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be in the main article not the intro because intros should be short Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

US vs. UK-style spelling

We currently use UK-style date formats but not UK spelling. I think articles should consistently use completely US or UK styles for both dates and spelling, rather than making up hybrids. I just changed Voyages of Christopher Columbus to UK-style spellings. My only objection to doing so is the reader-visible template which appears at the top of the article; maybe we could switch to UK-spelling just exclude the template. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

US spelling makes more sense to me. In any case, Wikipedia policy dictates weather there is a specific reason to use one over the other (usually for articles specifically tied to UK or US). If not, policy is to use whatever was used first. Eccekevin (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, i just checked. The article was started in 2001 with US spelling, so that should prevail unless there is a topic-specific argument for why it should be UK spelling. Eccekevin (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with either, but if US spelling is kept I think the date formats should be US-style as well. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, let's just make everything consistent with US spelling. Eccekevin (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That's going to take an RFC because Columbus is from an area of the world that uses DMY. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an RfC would be needed to simply make the region of date formats consistent with the article's spelling, which as Eccekevin points out has precedence. But feel free to ask for more commenters. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It does not have precedence if the person in question is from an area that uses DMY. Longstanding is DMY. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why would you make that argument about the dates but not the spelling? UpdateNerd (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The dates would be because of Columbus himself. And remember it's not UK date formatting... heaps of countries use that date format... including Italy. The spelling would be the English spelling in an English encyclopedia, and that varies between UK and USA spellings. We don't use the Genoan/Italian spelling in an English encyclopedia. Those formats are independent of each other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No RFC needed. Wikipedia policy asks for consistency depending on the first use. Regarding dates and spamming consistency, not sure. Eccekevin (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DATETIES says that spelling and date formatting are independent issues. However, it reads, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation." Italy isn't an English-speaking country. Similarly, MOS:TIES states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Unless an argument can be made for why we should ignore the MOS, I believe reinstating the switch to US-style dates would be appropriate. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"should use the English of that nation"... not the necessarily date format of that nation. Christopher Columbus has much stronger ties to Italy than the US... so the article should use the date format style of Italy anyway. If the article was simply on the discovery of the America's a point could be made, but it's not. As I said, form an RfC and get a whole bunch of editors to look at this. Perhaps they'll agree with you that it should change from it's long-standing DMY. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand; I'll rest my case based on the necessity to adhere to pre-existing formats, unless consensus differs. I'll leave these arguments should anyone else care to comment:

Columbus was born in Genoa, that is all. The article doesn't revolve around that area in any meaningful way. His legacy is far more important to the US. (Canada is also part of the New World, but uses YYYY-MM-DD-style dates, and its number of English-speakers is much smaller.) I.e. both spelling and dates being US-style makes sense.

One could make the argument (as I originally did) that Columbus as a topic is important enough to the entire world to use international styles for both dates and spelling. UK-spelling only differs from other international forms of English in minor ways compared to that of the US, which is significantly different from the rest. Any non-US variant would suffice, but the UK's is the most common. I.e. both spelling and dates being UK-style makes sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually on Wikipedia and on my visits, Canada uses MDY except in Quebec where they use DMY. I just don't see what the problem is here. Fyunck(click) (talk)

I agree with the argument that Columbus as a topic is important enough to the entire world to use international styles for both dates and spelling, but I also see no reason, as a practical matter, why an article that uses American English shouldn't also use the d/m/y format. After all, the US military uses it because it's more practical. Personally, I've never liked the m/d/year format and never use it in my own writing outside WP, but of course I conform to the established style of an article if I'm editing it. I would point out that Columbus has every bit as much relevance to the Latin American countries in the western hemisphere as he does to the US, and I believe they all use the d/m/y format, as well as American English in translated documents. Perhaps WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. Carlstak (talk) 14:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

My only problem with m/d/y is when it's limited to numerical display, making the meaning of each value ambiguous. Since we spell out the months, there's no inherit problem with the US format, especially on an article that uses US spelling. However, you make good points about military (e.g. maritime) usage of d/m/y as well as evidently in Latin America. However, using dmy format strongly makes me think we should use some form of international English. UK-style makes much more sense when read outside that country than US-style. But clearly there's no consensus amongst regulars here and the MOS doesn't dictate uniformity. I think it'd interesting to take this up at the MOS talk page (although that'd still be outweighed by consensus of individual articles), particularly regarding what "ties" mean; certainly there are associations which outweigh birthplace. This article would be a great example to cite in a potential MOS discussion. No need for an RfC here. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for taking it to the MOS talk page; it would be interesting to see if there's a consensus there. I'm used to writing in either British or Oxford English, so I wouldn't have a problem with using one or the other in the article, although I think doing so might invite a lot of "corrections" from ignorant Americans (I'm American) who think the US "owns" Columbus. I had trouble once with an outraged editor who kept reverting my correction of "spelled" to "spelt" in a British English article, insisting that it was hillbilly English that only ignorant, uneducated people would use. I finally shut him up with a link to the Lexico (Oxford Dictionaries) entry for the word.;-) Carlstak (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: your comment, UpdateNerd, that "UK-style makes much more sense when read outside that country than US-style". That doesn't seem persuasive, given that it could be applied to any article written in American English. I don't see anything that would make this article a special case; of course the variety of English most closely associated with the subject should be preferred, and surely the US is more closely associated with all the ramifications of Columbus's voyages than the UK (or England, specifically, in contemporaneous history). I see no compelling reason why we shouldn't use American English and d/m/y format. This article doesn't use all-numeric dates anyway, does it? Carlstak (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)