Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Cris-to-fo-ro or Cri-sto-fo-ro, linguistic discussion (help needed)

Let me explain. In en.wikipedia exist special pages named "Help:IPA for (insert language)". For example, Help:IPA for Italian. Those pages contain indications, conventions, instructions and everything needed to represent the IPA spelling of words and names of an X language. Help:IPA for Italian works in the same way. During last months there were also discussions in the related talk page to clarify some conventions and establish some others till consensus. That page must be used as reference for Italian phonetic transcriptions. Indeed the standard arrangement of symbols where the IPA is included creates a wikilink to that page: Italian pronunciation: [kwi]. You have to know that several IPAs already existing following previous conventions have been changed in last months (example). Current conventions are different from DiPi's which you linked. An example? A ː symbol is always used when the stressed vowel is long. Some more? The . is used to separate 2 vowels which otherwise would make a diphthong; DiPi doesn't use it. The ˌ is used for secondary stress mainly in compound words or names; DiPi doesn't use it. Italian Z is represented by (t)ts or (d)dz; DiPi uses (ʦ)ʦ and (ʣ)ʣ instead. And so on. You can't use the DiPi as a source for how to write Italian IPAs here. It can be used to know how to pronunce a word where there's a doubt, but DiPi's phonetic transcriptions use different standards. Here we write the stress at the beginning of the stressed syllabe while DiPi doesn't alwasy do so, for example when there's an "impure S" (S + other consonant). In French, German and other languages the syllabes are diveded like this: aS-Ca; in Italian instead we divide syllabes like this: a-SCa. That's why Cri-stò-fo-ro is sillabised like that. That's why the correct IPA is [kriˈstɔːforo]. Have I explained what you needed to know? I didn't want to make edit wars so I preferred to came here to explain everything, it took me so long but if you've understood why my edit is correct and why yours is wrong it was worth it. Will you please rectify the IPA now? Thanks. Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Qwertqwertqwert – thank you for discussing this, although it is better to discuss things about articles on the talk page of the article (discussion moved from my user talk page). I understand your concerns, and yet the Help page that you continue to refer to over and over references the DiPi website at the bottom of the page. Nothing on the Help page itself gives the detail you have given above, which by the way is impressive. Since the Help page you reference links to the DiPi as an IPA reliable source, then until you can show an alternative reliable source, the status quo pronunciation should remain in the article. To be clear, I have shown a reliable source for the pronunciation [krisˈtɔforo koˈlombo], and you have not shown a reliable source for the pronunciation you prefer. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources first, consensus second, and consensus has never gone against reliable sources. Please show a reliable source for your change, or else the status quo must remain in the article. Thank you for your understanding! Be prosperous! Paine  19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I've understood it's totally useless talking with a wall. We aren't going anywhere. I told you that this Wiki uses some conventions, I told you that Italian IPA spelling here has a different standard from DiPi which can't be considered universal, I told you that all (I underline ALL) articles containing an Italian word or name follow those convention. Conventions such as the stress before the impure S and, above all, the ː symbol for a long stressed vowel. You, instead, have immediately removed also that symbol just because it didn't appear in the DiPi, which has different spelling conventions. Then watch here and here, here and here and here, here and here, here and here and here. Either ALL these spellings are wrong and your Cristoforo's spelling is right, or ALL these spellings are right and only yours is wrong. Either you undo ALL those wrong spellings, or you admit you were wrong and you revert yourself. But I think I've understood enough about Wikipedian veterans to know that you'll do neither one nor the other, because you're right and others are wrong, that's the default. If I think that I came to en.wikipedia to improve it... That's the result. I'm getting out of this, you're free to leave the wrong IPA of Cristoforo, also to edit all other pronunciations you want so that they're wrong too, I don't care at all any longer. Bye. Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Kwamikagami or Florian Blaschke Can you help here? User:Qwertqwertqwert These are two experts in linguistics. Corinne (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The thing is – you've shown no reliable source to support what you've "told" me, all you've done is tell me. I realize that there may be a slight language barrier here, but you seem to have enough of a handle on English to be obnoxious. Why don't you try being civil instead, and why don't you try sticking to GLOBAL Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources? If you really do go, then know it's not because of me, it's because you wrongly frustrate yourself over this. All you have to do is come up with a reliable source that supports the strengths of your convictions. Why is that so much to ask, Qwertqwertqwert?  Paine  00:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

e ˈstre mo

Stay in your incoherence.

Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't indent your response, I'll have to assume that you are attempting to begin a new thread rather than responding to me. I would like to point out that you link to a page from an extract that is being discussed below, and even the person who first linked to it says it's "an extract from what 'appears to be' a reliable source, rather than "an extract from what 'is' a reliable source". Stay also in yours if you like. Be prosperous! Paine  01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter that e ˈstre mo has three clustered consonants, whereas krisˈtɔforo has only two?  Paine  10:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.

(ol-tran-zi-sta tung-ste-no)

Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

mo-struo-so ol-tran-zi-sta tung-ste-no (Treccani)

Stay in your incoherence.

Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 8:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, don't be so hard on yourself – you are truly forgiven. (AGF, CIVIL and NPA)  Paine  11:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

...Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The syllabification of /VsCV/ (and of other intervocalic consonant clusters that are also allowed word-initially) is often ambiguous. For example, Latin borrowings in English often have two pronunciations, one assuming /Vs.CV/ and one assuming /V.sCV/ and thus differing in the position of the English stress and vowel quality.) One way to tell is by whether the vowel takes its syllable-final allophone. Say, /o/ is [o] at the end of a syllable but [ɔ] before a coda consonant: you could then determine the syllable boundaries by whether /osCV/ is [o] or [ɔ]. I suspect that many languages go by an orthographic convention that can neither be demonstrated to be correct nor to be incorrect. We'd need a source here if you want to change the treatment of Italian. BTW, "ʦʦ" and "ʣʣ", while perhaps not technically incorrect, are quite confusing and should be avoided. (They suggest the pronunciation is [ts.ts] rather than [t.ts].) — kwami (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is an extract from what appears to me to be a reliable source that supports (on p.40) Qwertqwertqwert's syllabification of "Cristoforo". As far as I can see, the orthographic distribution of consonants in Italian between the start of a stressed syllable and the end of the preceding unstressed syllable doesn't make an iota of difference to the pronunciation of the word. It would make a difference if the distribution were between the end of the stressed syllable and the start of the next unstressed syllable, so possibly that's why the syllabification rules in the above-cited reference take the form that they do (and why the online Dictionary of Italian Pronunciation can get away with an (apparently) non-standard syllabification without specifying an erroneous pronunciation).

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it does make a difference even when not stressed. Apart from environments where /e/ and /ɛ/ contrast, //E// is [e] in open syllables and [ɛ] in closed syllables, and in //EsCV// it's [ɛ]. Thus our current syllabification is supported by the //E// section of this ref. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No. The reference does not say that "//E// is [e] in open syllables and [ɛ] in closed syllables". It merely describes the difference between the open and closed pronunciations of the vowels "o" and "e". In spoken (as opposed to sung) Italian, unstressed "e"s and "o"s are always pronounced with a closed pronunciation (see here, for example). Stressed "e"s and "o"s occur with both open and closed pronunciations (but only one of these is normally regarded as correct for any given word), and there are certainly open syllables (namely, sometimes at the ends of words) which are pronounced with a closed pronunciation, indicated orthographically by an acute accent: perché, sé, poiché.

Also, with regard to the distribution of two consonants between syllables, the reference explictly says on p.40:

"Otherwise [i.e. other than in the three cases already dealt with], put two consonants, including the digraphs ch [k], gli [ʎ], and gn [ɲ], with the syllable that follows."

Since the digraph pair of consonants "st" is not covered by any of the preceding three cases, it must fall under this provision, and therefore the reference most certainly does not support the article's current syllabification of "Cristoforo". On the contrary, it quite clearly supports editor Qwertqwertqwert's syllabification, just as I have already pointed out above.

P.S. Since writing this, I have realised that there are erroneous syllabifications of the ends of unstressed syllable which would suggest erroneous pronunciations, though I doubt whether anyone reasonably familiar with Italian phonetics could be misled into thinking that the suggested pronunciations are correct. An example is inc-in-ta which suggests the incorrect pronunciation inˈkinta rather than the correct inˈʧinta. Even so, with my limited knowledge of the use of IPA, I can't see how the IPA representation inʧ'inta with the stress mark incorrectly placed could indicate a pronunciation any different from the correct inˈʧinta.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That is very interesting. In the beginning, I believe you stated that this is from an extract from what appears to me to be a reliable source..., rather than from what is a reliable source. Does this mean that you question whether or not this source is reliable?  Paine  01:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that way. But whatever reservations I had about this source are now irrelevant, since editor Qwertqwertqwert has come up with this one, which I would consider impeccable. Its rule for distributing "s" and a following consonant between syllables is exactly the same:

"– i gruppi formati da s seguita da una o più consonanti formano una sillaba con la vocale che segue ... "

Translation: "Groups formed by s followed by one or more consonants form a syllable with the vowel which follows ... "

Also, a google search on the expression "Italian syllabification" brings up several articles which cite what appear to be very authoritative sources by experts in the area. I haven't had time to track these down yet, but I have now at least read the article at the top of the list returned by the google search. I can't see any grounds for doubting its reliability, and it also gives the same rule (p.306):

"2.2 With all other sequences of consonant-letters [i.e. apart from those already dealt with, none of which include "s" followed by other consonants], place the hyphen before the sequence: pa-sta " paste," mae-stro, " teacher" .... "

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, A digraph is a combination of two or more letters that represent a single sound, and I'm not sure that "st" qualifies as a single sound, but more like two distinct sounds, no? It doesn't seem to matter according to this source, though, because the indication is for "two consonants including the digraphs...". To me that means "any two consonants, not just digraphs". So if we can establish that this source is reliable, then we have this source and DiPi "at each other's throats", so to speak.  Paine  11:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term "digraph" to refer to the pair of consonants "st" was simply a mistake on my part. If I was ever aware that the term was normally restricted to meaning pairs of characters representing a single sound, I had long forgotten that fact, probably because I am now very accustomed to having seen the term used in contexts such as this, where that restriction is completely ignored.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, a digraph does not always represent a single sound, according to both Merriam-Webster: [1] and Wiktionary: wikt:digraph. OED gives only the one meaning: [2]. Corinne (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have read all of the above again, and I fail to see where the crooked-page .pdf link has been established as a reliable source in comparison with the IPA DiPi link. Yet the original editor has once again placed the questionable pronunciation in the infobox. Unless that source can be established as reliable, then the pronunciation should be reverted back to status quo, which I intend to do if someone does not soon give good reason.  Paine  17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Treccani - La cultura italiana | Treccani, il portale del sapere The Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Italian for "Italian Encyclopaedia of Science, Letters, and Arts"), best known as Treccani for its developer Giovanni Treccani or Enciclopedia Italiana, is an Italian-language encyclopaedia. The publication Encyclopaedias: Their History Throughout The Ages regards it as one of the greatest encyclopaedias, along with the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition and the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana.Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have read all of the above, why on earth are you continuing to focus on just the two sources whose reliability is subject to question (I would now definitely include the DiPi in that category), when two other clearly reliable sources, indicating that the DiPi's syllabification is erroneous, have already been provided? To those two I can now add the Accademia della crusca, which is the authority without peer on matters concerning the Italian language. The page devoted to syllabification of Italian words on its website says:

"Non si divide mai un gruppo formato da s + consonante/i: o-stra-ci-smo; te-schio; co-sto-la; sco-iat-to-lo; co-stru-i-re; ca-spi-ta, stri-scio-ne."

Translation: :"A group formed by s + consonant/s is never divided: .... "

thus agreeing with the two good sources already provided.

Of all the online Italian dictionaries I have checked, including the highly authoritarive Garzanti, the DiPi is the only one whose syllabification does not follow the rules enunciated in the above-cited sources. Here are some examples

Garzanti: [mi-stè-ro], [ca-stà-gna], [cri-stàl-lo]

Sabatino Colletti dizionario italiano, hosted on the website of Corriere della Sera: [mi-stè-ro], [ca-stà-gna], [cri-stàl-lo]

Hoepli's Grandi Dizionari: [mi-stè-ro], [ca-stà-gna], [cri-stàl-lo]

Dizionario italiano: [mi'stɛro], [ka'staɲɲa], [kri'stallo]

as opposed to the DiPi's apparently non-standard syllabifications:

[mis'tɛro], [kas'taɲɲa], [kris'tallo].

A google search on "regole di sillabazione" or "divisione in sillabe" returns an enormous number of Italian sources, many of which (such as the web page of the Accademia della crusca cited above) are undoubtedly reliable, and all of which that I have checked give the same set of syllabification rules as those sources already cited. From all of this, I would certainly question the reliability of the DiPi on this issue. But even if it can be regarded as satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, it is flatly contradicted by several undoubtably reliable sources, at least two of which I would consider much more authoritative, and an apparently huge number of other sources of varying or unknown degrees of reliability. It therefore seems to me that imposing the DiPi's syllabification on the article would be a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

David Wilson: *bow*

You know what's ironic in PE's point? Its intrinsic contradiction. On the one had, DiPi is the most super-duper reliable source about Italian language, so if it contradicts all other dictionaries, encyclopedias, vocabularies, grammar-orthography-pronunciation manuals about Italian language syllabification it's it the right one and all others are wrong. But when I make him become aware of the fact that his very DiPi doesn't use AT ALL (I'll repeat: AT ALL) symbols such as the ː (which is indicated after a stressed long vowel in open syllables, always and only in that case, in every single Italian IPA, and I brought several examples), the secondary stress and the hiatus point, which are instead always used in this Wiki, what does he do? He restores the ː he'd removed from [kriˈstɔːforo]. Didn't he talk about DiPi's reliability, about discussiong in Help:IPA for Italian talk, about consensus, etc? Does it apply only to syllabification (disproved by every different source provided) and not to everything else? Ironic, as I've said above...

Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what's ironic in PE's point?

Nothing if you consider that by reinserting the colon I was agreeing with you on that point. Nor do I take any stand that DiPi is the penultimate source, the "last word" on Italian syllabification. As I see it, my point is that according to the Help page, which you QQQ gave as an example on en Wikipedia of pages (that) contain indications, conventions, instructions and everything needed to represent the IPA spelling of words and names of an X language, the DiPi source that you so loudly proclaim as unreliable is indeed reliable. Then you proceed to name several other sources that are found nowhere – nowhere – on en Wikipedia. If you want those sources to be deemed reliable on Wikipedia, then they must be added to Wikipedia, so that other editors will not have to read your mind and will be able to read that those sources are reliable on Wikipedia. And if DiPi is indeed an unreliable source, then you should get it removed from the Help page you cited. So you see, QQQ, I do not argue for or against the validity/reliability of any source on Wikipedia – I argue that for an editor to merely give their opinion on a talk page about the reliability of sources does absolutely nothing to actually include any of those sources as reliable on Wikipedia. You are cordially invited to read WP:RS with understanding.  Paine  16:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Nor do I take any stand that DiPi is the penultimate source, the "last word" on Italian syllabification. Surely you mean “ultimate” here, User:Paine Ellsworth. And as a kibitzer, I don’t find Qwertqwertqwert’s position as weak as you’re stating here. This feels more like stubbornness than adherence to policy. Whether or not a source is already noted on Wikipedia is irrelevant to reliability; otherwise we’re perpetuating mistakes instead of fixing them. An editor isn’t obliged to discover for you how reliable a source is; that is a job for each of us as independent minds who must reach a consensus. If you think Qwertqwertqwert’s source is less reliable, then prove it. Until then, “his” reasoning seems sound to me, and with User:David_J_Wilson’s due diligence (as opposed to endless procedural wrangling), your points seem rather pallid. Strebe (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

www.dizionario-italiano.it sample Qwertqwertqwert (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I value your good opinion, Strebe, and it is interesting that you should "feel" as you do. In this case, an editor, new on en Wiki with no indication of being a veteran on another Wikipedia, comes in and changes the Italian pronunciation of Columbus' given name with this edit (note there is also no edit summary). I think any editor who maintains a custodial watch of this page would have done the same thing I did, which was to revert and warn the new editor. No edit summary – no reason to change the pronunciation from what reliable sources say it should be. When that editor does come to the talk page, it's my talk page, and the post comes in the form of a mild personal attack. Then the discussion ensues on this talk page where it should be, and the first thing QQQ does is to cite the Help page shown above. In other words they cited a page that has the DiPi source for detailed pronunciations. Where else should we look? I do give both QQQ and David a lot of credit for their source-finding diligence, and I realize that they are certainly within their editorial rights to add the other pronunciation to the Information box, along with one or more cited sources, below the present entry. When we have two or more sources that give different facts, then all should be heard. And I still say that it would be best if the sources are added/subtracted as necessary from that Help page, so that other editors won't have to guess about their validity in this and in other articles. Be prosperous! Paine  00:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, User:Paine Ellsworth. It is Qwertqwertqwert’s technical merits I defend, not his etiquette. Certainly improvements should get made to Help:IPA now that we’re gelling on a consensus here. I did not have any problem with your original reversion, and for the reasons you gave. But when Qwertqwertqwert, however surlily, began giving credible reasons and sources for his edit, it behooved us to take them seriously. Rather than putting the burden of proof on “him” as the provocateur of change, it should be on us as veterans. A lot of experts new to Wikipedia don’t understand the rules and guidelines, and there is no particular reason they should. When we demand procedure from people who have no idea what the procedures are, or why, we drive them out. Veterans should conduct the due diligence in the face of apparent competence. I can only imagine how boggling it is to someone in Qwertqwertqwert’s position that so much time, energy, and rancor has been invested in placement of a single symbol whose correctness might be obvious to experts. Strebe (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not about whether this was a major or minor edit. When you edit like a vandal you get treated like one. Many more people have lost their jobs due to their behavior, attitude and surliness than for not having the needed expertise. If QQQ worked for me, I'd fire them. Be prosperous! Paine  20:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have read all of the above, why on earth are you continuing to focus on just the two sources whose reliability is subject to question (I would now definitely include the DiPi in that category), when two other clearly reliable sources, indicating that the DiPi's syllabification is erroneous, have already been provided? To those two I can now add...

"Why on earth?" Because the DiPi is given as a reliable source on the very page cited by User:Qwertqwertqwert:

• Help:IPA for Italian

In the External links section of that page we find two links:

• (in Italian) Dizionario italiano multimediale e multilingue d'ortografia e di pronunzia (not based on IPA)
• (in Italian) Dizionario di pronuncia italiana online by Luciano Canepari (based on IPA)

At the first link, all I could find was where the accent is placed, but no syllabic separations. And we already know what is found at the second link – the "based on IPA" link – krisˈtɔforo. So here's the thing... that is supposed to be the page on Wikipedia that gives what the community consensus is for Italian pronunciations. And consensus trumps editorial opinion every time, every time. We have your opinion, and we have QQQ's opinion, and we set that next to Wikipedia's consensus. So "why on earth?" – That's why on earth. If you want your reliable sources to become part of what Wikipedia deems "reliable", then in my humble opinion you must begin on the talk page of that Italian Help page. If DiPi is unreliable, then it must be removed, and if your sources are reliable, then they should be added to that page. Until that is done, the community consensus is to return this article's infobox to the status quo condition with the reliable (or as you deem it, unreliable) source.  Paine  10:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I no longer have any doubts about the reliability of the DiPi, not because of any supposed consensus—which, as far as I can see, has not at all been established by any activity IPA for Italian help page or its talk page—but because I have finally discovered why it places the stress marker where it does, and found an indisputably reliable source—namely the 2016 edition of lo Zingarelli—whose placement of the stress marker coincides with that of the DiPi's. These do not contradict the reliability of the other sources I have given—with the possible exception of the Dizionario Italiano—because their syllabification of the IPA rendering of a word is based on different criteria (namely, phonetic principles) from the rules of orthographic syllabification used to divide the normal written form of the word into syllables. Since it's now well past my bedtime I'll leave the remaining details for later.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. English has analogous differences of convention. Thanks, David Wilson, for all the productive work you’re putting into this. Strebe (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Seconded, and I am deeply sorry if any of my lack of respect for the other editor spilled over into my responses to you. You are an awesome Wikipedian!  Paine  19:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. A gentle reminder about consensus on Wikipedia: Established long ago (when there were far fewer editors) was that consensus may just mean that an editor made a change that was not challenged by another editor(s). Consensus has come to be defined in other ways on Wikipedia in addition to the definition I gave above. So even if an edit wasn't explicitly decided by a group of editors on a talk page, a community consensus can still mean simply that no member(s) of the community has challenged the edit, either immediately or over time. PS added by  Paine  19:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a brief note to publicly apologize to QQQ for completely misreading their original intentions. I left a little more detailed msg on their talk page. Be prosperous! Paine  00:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A little remark to @David J Wilson:: the orthographic syllabification follows phonetic principles too. The division in syllables in Italian is so accomplished, to allow the reader to pronounce correctly a word also when another line (or page) starts, and I does not know what the continuation of the word is: I learned this in 3rd grade. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I didn't mean to imply that the standard orthographic syllabification rules ignore phonetic principles. Modern principles of acoustic syllabification, as enunciated in the Italian Wikipedia aricle Sillaba, nevertheless do sometimes give different syllabifications from those obtained from the traditional orthographic syllabification rules, and this happens to be the case for the syllabification of sequences of the form [VstV] under discussion here. This is syllabified as [V-stV] under the traditional rules of orthographic syllabification, but has to be syllabified as [Vs-tV] according to the acoustic principles described in the Italian Wikipedia article.

In the following remarks I will concentrate on the single issue concerning the article's content which seems to me to remain not quite yet settled—namely, whether its IPA representation for the pronunciation of Cristoforo should be

• [kriˈstɔːforo], as argued for by editor Qwertqwertqwert or
• [krisˈtɔːforo], as currently in the article.

We have so far, in fact, only a single reference of any kind—namely, the DiPi online which gives an IPA representation for the pronunciation of the name. While the dictionary lo Zingarelli (2016 edition) does have an entry on the name, it doesn't provide an IPA representation for its pronunciation, or for those of any other names, as far as I can tell. It seems to provide such IPA representations only for ordinary words. Therefore the challenge to the DiPi's representation has so far had to rely on general principles governing the placement of the stress marker, which supposedly dictate that it should be placed as in the first representation given above, rather than as in the second, which is where the DiPi puts it.

As far as I can see, no-one, with the possible exception of editor Qwertqwertqwert, still now disputes the DiPi's reliability. Ignoring the apparently supposed authority of discussions elsewhere on English Wikipedia to settle the issue, which, as far as I can tell, do not exist, I gather that Qwertqwertqwert's argument against the IPA representation currently used in the article boils down to the following assertions:

• The well-established rules for othographic syllabification of Italian words require that a letter sequence of the form [VsCV] must be syllabified as [V-sCV], rather than [Vs-CV].
• Therefore, when a stressed vowel of an Italian word is preceded by a letter sequence of the form [VsC], the stress marker in the IPA representation of its pronunciation must be placed between the 's' and the preceding vowel (i.e. [V'sC]) rather than between the 's' and the following constant (i.e. not [Vs'C]).

The truth of the first assertion is incontestable. The rule has been explictly enunciated by several good sources, including the impeccable Treccani encyclopedia and Accademia della Crusca's website, it is followed by the two most authoritative Italian dictionaries—the Garzanti and lo Zingarelli—, and no-one has provided a single source of any kind that contradicts it.

The second assertion, however, implicitly assumes that the stress marker in the IPA representation of a word's pronunciation must be placed in a position where the rules of orthographic syllabification require the placement of a syllable separator. While this assumption might appear to be highly plausible at first sight, further reflection should convince you that it is not completely obvious. And, in fact, the 2016 edition of the highly authoritative lo Zingarelli dictionary demonstrates unequivocally that it is false. That dictionary gives exactly the same orthographic syllabifications of the words "mistero", "castagna" and "cristallo", for example, as the above-cited other dictionaries—namely, [mi-stè-ro], [ca-stà-gna] and [cri-stàl-lo]—but its IPA representations for the pronunciations of these words coincide exactly with the DiPi's—[mis'tɛro], [kas'taɲɲa], [kris'tallo].

The article's current IPA representation for the pronunciation of "Cristoforo" is thus perfectly acceptable, according to conventions followed by reliable sources, and, in my opinion, editor Qwertqwertqwert's alternative should not be adopted. There is perhaps a little more, though, that might be worth saying, but to avoid burying the main point in a welter of verbiage I'll collapse the rest.

Warning: Ingredients may contain traces of (gasp!) Original Research. Susceptible wikipedians should proceed with extreme caution.

The reason why the placement of of the stress marker in an IPA representation of a word doesn't always follow the orthographic syllabification rules is partly explained by Luciano Canepari, editor of the DiPi, in his Handbook of Pronunciation (p.135): "On the subject of syllabification, apart from the unsatisfactory nature of modern ‹phonological modes›, one must recall that even traditional grammars are not the most objective—quite the opposite, in fact! As well as the absurd graphic syllabic division of -sC- (which, despite its obvious flaws has been entrusted to computers too, so, unfortunately there is no hope of changing it), from a phonic point of view, the only real division (and natural too: just listen to it!) for /sC/ is after /s/, not before ..." The same point is made a little more clearly and explicitly by Isabella Chiaro in her appendix II to Tullio De Mauro's Linguistica elementare: "Per la scansione in sillabe fonologiche dell'italiano bisogna rilevare almeno due casi di discrepanza rispetto alla scansione ortografica: Il caso in cui all'interno di parola vi sia un nesso consonantico in cui il primo elemento sia [s] o [z], ossia una <S> ortografica: nella sillabazione ortografica una parola come pasto si sillaba <PA.STO>, dal punto di vista fonetico invece, bisogna sillabare pas.to, come as.pro, or.ches.tra, es.co ecc. ... " Translation: "For the phonological division of Italian into syllables, it is necessary to highlight at least two cases which differ from the orthographic division: The case when there is a string of consonants inside a word whose first element is [s] or [z], or an orthographic <S>: in orthographic syllabification a word like pasto is syllabified <PA.STO>, on the other hand, from the phonetic point of view it must be syllabified pas.to, likewise as.pro, or.ches.tra, es.co etc. ... " Frustratingly (to me) neither of these sources explain the phonetic principle giving rise to these assertions, but after a little googling and delving into the sources returned—including the Italian Wikipedia article Sillaba cited above—, I discovered that it appears to be something known as the "Sonority Sequencing Principle". In any language, distinct phonemes are graded on a scale of a quality called "sonority", with vowels being the most sonorous, and stops being the least. A syllable is supposedly a sequence of sounds between two successive minima in the sonority of an utterance, with a minimum itself being assigned to the syllable which follows it. Since [s] is higher than [t] on the Italian sonority scale (see the table of sonorities on this page, for instance), the minimum between the peaks of sonority represented by the vowels in a sequence of the form [VstV] occurs at the [t], so the Sonority Sequencing Principle requires it to be syllabified as [Vs-tV]. I include below an audio file of myself pronouncing the name "Cristoforo" and a screenshot of the resulting waveform. I initially thought that this provided a good demonstration of why, on acoustic principles, the IPA representation [krisˈtɔːforo] should be regarded as correct, but I'm not so confident now that it's at all relevant. I'm not a native speaker of Italian, but the main features of the wave form produced by a female native speaker uttering the word "Cristoforo" about 8 seconds into this YouTube clip are very similar. Since Wikipedia policy only allows non-free images to be uploaded under a fair use rationale if the image is used in an article, I'm unfortunately not able to upload a screenshot of that waveform.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If you aren't able to find conclusions, why don't you ask for help here? It is the talk page of italian wikiproject linguistics, I am sure they could help you out. I would like to add that, even if a pronunciation like cris-to-fo-ro could make sense exactly because of the reasons inside the {{collapse top}} David Wilson made (it reflects a very good understanding of italian pronunciation, IMHO), italians are taught in primary schools that correct syllables are cri-sto-fo-ro, but, even if I am a native italian speaker, I am definetely not into linguistics, and there could be some shift between orthography and pronunciation, and surely italians understand both pronunciations.--Nickanc (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

expanding on genocide and holiday sections

Contemporary view on the issue: [3], [4], [5], [6]. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is simply "I HATE WESTERN CIVILIZATION" soapboxing. Get rid of Columbus Day, get rid of Thanksgiving, etc... no real purpose of helping the article except to complain about Columbus. This topic should be ignored or removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@178.148.10.191: I am not sure exactly what you want to do. I am as concerned with the subject as the next scholar obsessed with evidence and clarity, but expanding the section would go against WP guidelines. It would create an article with radically disproportionate sections. What we need, actually, is to actualize, synthesize, and bring cohesiveness to this section ("Atrocities and tragedies of colonization"). This article should indeed have a section on this topic, and perhaps your citations should somehow be included, but the section should not be expanded. There are many other articles closer to this issue that should have more space for broader discussions on the matter than this one. Take, for example, Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas and National Day of Mourning (United States protest), to mention just two. Though I can't agree with the practice of deleting other user's comments in Talk Pages (unless they are offensive or otherwise merit so), I think that Fyunck(click) (talk) is correct in interpreting your (rather unclear) comments/requests as potential soapboxing, blogging, or essaying. But as I said, we need help in rewriting, updating, and synthesizing this section. Caballero1967 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2015‎ (UTC)

I felt it merited it by soapboxing/blogging. That is exactly when the comments should get deleted. But I'm not going to worry about it as it's just spouting and hate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Got your point. Thanks. Historiador (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There is disputed section in the article talking exactly about this thing. Not sure why it is disputed, but thought additional sources might help. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, read what I wrote above. That is the section that I am talking about. It is disputed simply because it is not yet cohesive, and the sources are no the best. That is why we need editors to rewrite, update, and synthesize it. Historiador (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't expect me to do it, article is protected.. I just help with sources. :) 178.148.10.191 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Motivation for voyage

In a TV programme I just watched, it said that one of the motivations for Columbus' voyage, or the Spanish support for it, was the hope of finding a route by which Jerusalem could be attacked from the east. Unless I missed it, this does not seem to be mentioned in the article. Is it plausible? Should it be mentioned? 81.132.192.192 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@81.132.192.192: I am glad you wrote. A documentary, however, is not a reliable source (WP:HISTRS). This subject has been mentioned before. If you could produce some recent reviews we can start a conversation. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite to 'Atrocities and tragedies of Colonization'

Frankly, it's not surprising that this has gone unfixed, since this seems to be the page on 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit' that no one can edit. Here is my proposed rewrite of the obviously slanted section 'Atrocities and tragedies of Colonization', which I feel might be summarily ignored, especially because the information doesn't really hold together coherently. If the editation of the page in general was not disabled, they could be easily migrated into more appropriate locations. More broadly I feel strongly that the editation of a page should not be prevented, proposed edits instead going into some sort of queue instead. Preventing general editation leads to the sort of stagnation seen here.

Impacts of Colonization

The treatment by Columbus and his men of Hispaniola natives was akin to that of an invading army.[115] As a result, they disappeared rapidly after contact with the Spanish, due this treatment as well as European disease.[107][108] De las Casas records that when he first came to Hispaniola in 1508, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."[109] Modern estimates for the pre-Columbian population of Hispaniola are around 250,000–300,000. 56 years after Columbus landed, fewer than five hundred Taino were left on the island.[110] Disease played a significant role in this depopulation though there is no record of an epidemic until 25 years after the arrival of Columbus.[113][114]

The native Taino people of Hispaniola were systematically integrated into the encomienda system implemented by Columbus,[111] which resembled the feudal system in Medieval Europe.[112] When they began to die at high rates, Columbus switched to a different system of forced labor: he ordered all natives over the age of thirteen to collect a specified amount (one hawk's bell full) of gold powder every three months. Natives who brought the amount were given a copper token to hang around their necks, and those found without tokens had their hands amputated and were left to bleed to death.[46][117]

Columbus spearheaded a massive slave trade; in 1495 his men captured in a single raid 1500 Arawak men, women, and children and shipped five hundred of the slaves to Spain.[46] Historian James W. Loewen asserts that "Columbus not only sent the first slaves across the Atlantic, he probably sent more slaves – about five thousand – than any other individual."[116] The Arawaks that fought back against enslavement were hanged or burned to death, overwhelmed by the Spaniards superior technology. Desperation for freedom led them to mass suicides and infanticide. In just two years under Columbus's governorship more than half of the 250,000 Arawaks in Haiti were dead.[46] Again, the main cause for the depopulation was disease followed by causes such as warfare and enslavement.[118][119][120]

There is evidence that the men of the first voyage brought syphilis from the New World to Europe, spreading "the Great Pox" across Europe and triggering the deaths of more than five million people.[122][123] Biasedeyes (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Biasedeyes: Thanks for the time and thought you have given to this topic. I agree with the problem of stagnation. It is more related to the lack of will and time in dealing with a difficult subject This article, however, should continue being locked for exactly that reason: it would be a horrible battle-ground. Your suggested text embodies this problem. While it advances the subject in some aspects, it is also full of half-truths, and misinformation. Every statement should be sustained with the latest secondary sources that reflect the scholarly consensus. In fact, the section, as it stands today, is is also misleading. There is a subsection, for example, that is only sustained by a single fringe source. That should be eliminated or related to the notes. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 21:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: I agree, the current text is incredibly misleading. The above text represents an incremental rewrite meant to take the text in a less misleading direction. Wikipedia depends on such incremental rewrites for its quality. This is why I believe that the page itself should become more open. Biasedeyes (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Real Nationality

It's not correct to say that Columbus was Italian, Today there's no certainty about it. He might Portuguese, Spanish or Italian. Example source: https://alpha.sib.uc.pt/?q=content/nacionalidade-portuguesa-de-cristovam-colombo-portuguese-nationality-christopher-columbus Unsigned comments of Mariorodriguespt 08:31, January 24, 2016

@Mariorodriguespt: Thanks for pitching in. I moved your comments to the bottom of the Talk Page, where new sections are supposed to go, and signed your name with the time and hour.

The link you provide is part of the new research challenging the traditional position that Columbus was from Genoa, but it is not a review essay, which might indicate the consensus of the field. Until this consensus is not reached, Wikipedia is bound to continue presenting the traditional position, albeit also showing that there are challenges to this position. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 18:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The book catalogued at the link is a 1998 reprint of one whose author died in 1923, and which was first publshed in 1927. I doubt if there are any modern professional historians who are using it as part of any "new research".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mariorodriguespt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus

In a 1498 deed of primogeniture, Columbus writes:

Siendo yo nacido en Genova... de ella salí y en ella naci...[2][nb 1]

— As I was born in Genoa... came from it and was born there...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.32.205.254 (talk) 14:25, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

In that era Italy was not united yet, there is a gap of 400 years 77.166.30.3 (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2016

24.233.169.172 (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)He did not discover anything, in the history book it says he found Native Indians in the New World.

 Not done Ridiculous request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Logical error in the distances?

(apologies if I'm somehow doing this wrong, first time trying to make a contribution to wikipedia)

It says in the page: "Columbus therefore estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300 statute miles). The true figure is now known to be vastly larger: about 12,500 km."

While 12,500km is correct, this is measured traveling east (or north) from Canary Islands i.e. across Eurasia or over the polar region. Columbus was planning to travel west and thus his mistake was even much larger than implied above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.150.141 (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed

Well-spotted, and congratulations on making a very worthwhile first contribution to Wikipedia. As a sanity check on the distance of 10,600 nm (19,631 km) given in the Phillipses reference now cited, I calculated the distance westward from the longitude of the Canary Islands to the longitude of Tokyo at the latitudes of the two places. I got 20,127 km for the distance at the latitude of the Canaries (28° N), and 18,515 km for it at the latitude of Tokyo (35°41' N).

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Assuming no need to go around land masses to reach Japan, the correct distance along a parallel, going west from Iberia, is 40,000 km × cos 36°[latitude of Cadiz/Tokyo] × (180°–140°[Tokyo’s meridian]+180°–5°[Cadiz’s meridian)/360° = 19,000 km. The article is wrong. Strebe (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh. User:David J Wilson just fixed this as I was doing the computation. Strebe (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Another anti India wiki article

Here is anotoher example of another wikipedia article that is anti India. Everyone knows Columbus was going for India. That's why the Native Americans are called Indians. But not on this article. Here it states he was going for the East Indies, and when you click East Indies, it shows a map of the area around Indonesia.

This is another example of many examples on wikipedia that people don't want to give credit to India.

Well, at least this article didn't put South Asia or Asia instead of India. 2605:E000:2483:AF00:7023:1B4F:5A04:5F3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would a locale get “credit” as a destination? How is that an achievement? Anyway, Columbus had no idea where he was going, other than to “the Indies”, which at the time meant anything east of Persia. As stated in the article, Meanwhile, in the 1480s, the Columbus brothers had picked up Toscanelli's suggestion and proposed a plan to reach the Indies (then construed roughly as all of south and east Asia). “The Indies” did •not• mean India in the modern sense. Most specifically, he was going to where black pepper, cloves, cinnamon, and nutmeg came from. Some varieties of cinnamon were cultivated in what is now India, but the remaining spices, and other cinnamons, were native to southeast Asia. Strebe (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

black legend

article has no mention of Black Legend

add to bottom of atrocities section that

"However some of these accounts may be part of Black Legend." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seditorso (talk • contribs) 05:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

okay I understand now the yellow box request from above

add to bottom of atrocities section that

"However some of these accounts may be part of Black Legend."

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

ok found sources in black legend lewis hanke and benjamin keen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seditorso (talk • contribs) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

66.203.38.201 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC) i whould take this edit reqrest out because every day peaple change this sight.

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. Cannolis (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dubious Zinn ref

Currently the article includes the following: " Noting their gold ear ornaments, Columbus took some of the Arawaks prisoner and insisted that they guide him to the source of the gold.[47]" The references is A People's History of the United States (1980) by Howard Zinn. This is a highly controversial work: although it is ostensibly a non-fictional history, it includes much invention, interpolation and fabrication. The only first hand accounts of what occurred during Columbus' first meeting with the Arawaks are in his journals and those of the other captains, and they do not mention Columbus insisting he be lead to the source of the gold. Ordinary Person (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

From the journal of Columbus, 15 Oct 1492:

"About sunset we anchored near the cape which terminates the island towards the west to enquire for gold, for the natives we had taken from San Salvador told me that the people here wore golden bracelets upon their arms and legs. I believed pretty confidently that they had invented this story in order to find means to escape from us, still I determined to pass none of these islands without taking possession, because being once taken, it would answer for all times."

I submit that kidnapping someone as a guide constitutes "insisting"... --Wormcast (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Kidnapping" is an interpretation. Strebe (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

True, and an inaccurate one at that. Since it is unclear that a ransom was being demanded, "abduction" is the more obvious term for Columbus's action. --Wormcast (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

“Abduction” is an interpretation. Strebe (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

All words are interpretations at that rate. I don't see the dubious claim. q (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Strebe, don't you have something better to do? --Wormcast (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Also "When I arrived in the Indies, at the first island I found I took some of them by force so that they could learn and give me information about what there was in those parts..." (Columbus's Santangel letter) --Wormcast (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Wormcast, don’t you have the sense to recognize when the evidence you give doesn’t live up to your claims? Your first quote states, “…the natives we had taken from San Salvador…”. Calling that an “abduction” is an interpretation, and not in some pedantic sense. The second quote is unambiguous: “I took some of them by force…”. I checked translations of several versions of the Sant Angel letter, and they all agree on the term “force”, which supports your characterization as an abduction. Hence I accept that characterization, but no thanks to your original “evidence”. A little less snarkiness and a little more awareness of what you’re doing might go some ways toward keeping exchanges brief, efficient, and civil. Strebe (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally people "taken" by a notorious slaver who feel the need to "find means to escape" are taken by force. But kudos for working this out! --Wormcast (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Languages in infobox

Can someone please explain to me why is his name is written in so many languages in the infobox? I understand Spanish, Latin, Italian, Portuguese.. but why on Earth would the transl(iter)ations in Greek, Polish and Hungarian be relevant for this article? What is the criteria for inclusion? And if there aren't any, why not add another 50 languages then? I propose a deletion of the last three if there isn't something I'm missing here. Sideshow Bob 19:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Columbus first European in America?

In the Wiki entry of Dirk Hartog it is mentioned that he, the navigator who landed first at the Australian west coast ( 400 years ago this year), and then prompted, like Columbus, a sequence of mariners to also come, hence accelerated the unveiling of the continent on the world map, is first reported there as being the second European to land in Australia. As many perceive Columbus was the first European in America, but wasn't (Leif Eriksson was), this should also be mentioned in the article about Columbus, also for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.141.19 (talk) 12:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the issue here. Columbus is clearly identified as inaugurating an enduring European presence, though not the first European to arrive. Leif Eriksson is directly identified in the introduction. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

De Las Casas Ambiguity

I'm not sure who is referred to in the section Atrocities and tragedies of colonization by the name De Las Casas. Earlier in the article I read:

Pedro de las Casas, father of the priest Bartolomé de las Casas, also accompanied Columbus on this voyage.

This would seem to imply Pedro. However, Bartolomé is reknowned for his concern for Indian welfare, so that also seems plausible. Can someone read the sources and check? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Catalan Cristòfor Colom

148.188.1.60 (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

On this page, Christopher Columbus is being described as "Italian". Italy was not formed in his lifetime. He was merely born in what is present-day Italy, which is a much more accurate statement. I am requesting at the very least that the "Italian" descriptor be removed, if not the addition of a more accurate descriptor.

W006lxw (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done

The misconception that the term "Italian" can't refer to anyone who inhabited Italy before it became a modern sovereign state is contradicted by a plethora of reliable sources, and certainly isn't one that Wikipedia should pander to. To cite just one such source for Columbus, William D. and Carla Rahn Phillips, in their The Worlds of Christopher Columbus, write (p.85):

"During Columbus's lifetime, and for more than a century thereafter, no one seemed to doubt that he was an Italian, …"

David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

False information about Christopher

he is a fraud never went no where this all lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.251.2 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources say otherwise. clpo13_(talk) 15:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Proposal to correct a mistake.

"Some modern historians have argued that he was not from Genoa but, instead, from the Aragon region of Spain[16] or from Portugal.[17] These competing hypotheses have generally been discounted by mainstream scholars"

the above statement is wrong. Must say "from the Catalonia region of Spain" as Catalonia and Aragon are two different regions.

148.188.1.60 (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Source says Aragon, though it does mention the Catalan language and Catalonia under the other theories. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

I want to edit it because i have some useful information Mikachu memes (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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. Cannolis (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Monuments of Columbus Gallery

I'd like to add the monuments gallery in honor of Columbus in the Legacy section.

Madrid Spain

Genova, Italy

Barcelona, Spain

Lima Peru

Valparaiso, Chile

New York

Santo Domingo

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Barranquilla, Colombia

--User:Edhu9 (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sex Slavery section

I have removed the following content from the article:

===Sex slavery=== On his way back to Spain to stand trial for accusations of abuse of Spaniard colonists, Columbus wrote a letter to the nurse of the son of Ferdinand and Isabella, pleading his case. He wrote: {{quote|"Now that so much gold is found, a dispute arises as to which brings more profit, whether to go about robbing or to go to the mines. A hundred castellanos are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ageofex.marinersmuseum.org/index.php?type=explorersection&id=65|title=The Mariners' Museum – EXPLORATION through the AGES|publisher=}}</ref>}}

While the text in the letter could certainly be interpreted to a modern reader as sex slavery or, at the very least, underaged prostitution, the source itself makes no mention of either of these and this interpretation must be considered OR until a better source is found using this specific accusation. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Taking this out is a bad thing to do. Instead of just wholesale deleting it, you should have altered it slightly. But I guess you're trying to sanitize the page of the harshest criticism of columbus. The fact that he was discussing how to sell little girls for sex is the worst thing I've heard of him doing, and thank goodness I checked the talk page to find this information. Only a monster could do this sort of thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.204.128 (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but you may be misinterpreting this change. If I were trying to sanitize the page, I would have deleted it wholesale. Instead I moved it to the talk page. This is your opportunity to discuss the content and hopefully provide additional sources. As it stands, though, the source makes no mention of sex slavery, only a direct quote from the primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Readers or editors interpreting this content for themselves represents Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If you have additional reliable sources for this claim, please provide them and perhaps the content can be altered and re-added to the body text. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a note on that quote: If you read it in context (see link below), you can see that it is part of a section complaining about the dishonest settlers that have come to the colonies which he was made a governor of. It does not seem that Columbus is advocating selling women for sex but was actually using this as an example of the bad behavior of the colonists he was governing. The very next sentences say "I assert that the violence of the calumny of turbulent persons has injured me more than my services have profited me; which is a bad example for the present and for the future. I take my oath that a number of men have gone to the Indies who did not deserve water in the sight of God and of the world; and now they are returning thither, and leave is granted them." Furthermore, considering that this letter was to the son of Queen Isabel to defend himself from accusations wrongdoing, and that Queen Isabel had previously had the slaves that Columbus had brought from the "New World" returned and freed and that she had said that she wanted the native peoples treated with justice and fairness, I think that further suggests that he was describing things that were happening but not advocating for them. Advocating for that would not have helped his case, considering the view of the Queen on that matter. However, saying that the colonists, the ones who were accusing him of wrongdoing, had done such things WOULD be a helpful defense. You can see the the whole letter he wrote, translated into English, here: http://ageofex.marinersmuseum.org/index.php?type=explorersection&id=65 (Note from Goldenecho)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

I want to edit this article because Christopher Columbus did not technically discover America. The most he did for it was map it out. SoPhIaRaE05 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC) SoPhIaRaE05 SoPhIaRaE05 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Where does the article say that he discovered America? The third paragraph of the intro states that he "was not the first European explorer to reach the Americas." He is only credited in the article for discoveries of islands that had not been previously reached by Europeans. And the Legacy section explains in detail that he did not discover America. What more would you add? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

Brain213333 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC) The name is wrong.

 Not done - It is correct in English as per WP:COMMONNAME
The "early life" section also gives his name in Latin, Italian and Spanish - Arjayay (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Marxist Class analysis (image problem)

I want to ad a picture underneath the painting of Columbus and the king. Its the same picture but with Algebra on top as a worksheet to historical material dialectics. The image upploader keeps telling me i have to ad a picture taken with my own camera, but its the same original as on the page. Its not necessary that the picture appears on the main page it can been under image folder it self for those who wants to know more please help!

Class analysis State Apparatus Lacanian psychoanalysis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy Phi (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Without the image being uploaded first, this request is invalid. You can request an image be uploaded. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead

In the lead you accuse columbus of genocide by consensus of "several hystorians". However, later in the article, you correctly write "only one major history text he reviewed mentions Columbus's role in genocide" and that this is a black legend, as hystorians agree that there was no genocide (this is a political issue, hystorians says otherwise) as there was no intentions of killing the natives (the aim was to submit and convert them) and as, as correctly reported in the article, the large majority of natives' deaths are due to deseases unintentionally imported by the europeans: the article mentions correctly that "80-90 % of natives die beacuse of smallpox" and that "the spaniards were too few" to have carried out killings on such a scale. Therefore the lead has to be change as it misrepresent the consensus among hystorians. It should be changed in something like "Columbus tried to subdue and/or enslave the local population of Hyspaniola. This aspect of his life has caused political concerns in the present over his legacy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.135.54 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2016

Coolgrapefruit (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

Wasn't he Genovese? How can he be Italian if there was no country called "Italy" by then?!? 188.37.231.161 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The term "Italian" is at least 3,000 years old. It dates back to pre-Roman Italy. It's from the Latin term "Italia" which translates into English as "Italy". There's a Wikipedia article called "Italians" which you might find worth checking out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does the city where he died?

In the description " (Italian: Cristoforo Colombo;[a] c. 1451 – 20 May 1506)" I understand that you don't see the place where he was born because it is not clear today, but I am surprised that you don't see the place where he died, when nobody doubts it (Valladolid, Crown of Castile,20 May 1506).81.172.28.159 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Places of his birth and death are listed in the infobox. They are not listed in the opening sentence per Wikipedia's style guide.InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Birth of his natural son

Shouldn't the year of birth for his natural son be 1488, not 1588? 210.163.212.17 (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yep. Thanks for catching that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Columbus driven by his opium addiction

Can someone at least put in that Columbus had an opium addiction and that is what drove him to want to go to asia. Reference http://biography.yourdictionary.com/articles/some-facts-about-christopher-columbus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.233.167 (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a myth that appears in no credible source. Opium addiction didn't exist in Europe at the time. Strebe (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Christopher Colombus was NOT the first to discover or settle in the north american region

As noted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson , Research done in the early 1960s by Norwegian explorer Helge Ingstad and his wife, archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad, identified a Norse settlement located at the northern tip of Newfoundland. It has been suggested that this site, known as L'Anse aux Meadows, is Leif's settlement of Leifsbúðir. The Ingstads demonstrated that Norsemen had reached America about 500 years before Christopher Columbus.[30][31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.124 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the article? This article does not state that he was first; in fact, the third paragraph in the introduction section at the top of the article clearly and explicitly states that he was not the first - and it mentions Leif Erikson by name in that paragraph. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The article does, indeed, clearly state that Christopher Columbus's discovery was preceded by Leif Erikson's 11th century Viking discovery. But Erikson was NOT the first to discover and settle North America (albeit his settlement was small and temporary). The Asians discovered America about 13,500 years ago and created settlements throughout North and South America. Nowadays, there's the Solutrean hypothesis which suggests the French were the first Europeans to discover America. This due to the findings of 21,000-year old French utensils within the United States. Perhaps the French were the first European discoverers and settlers of North America, and not Leif Erikson and his Vikings, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 09:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

'Asian's are not Europeans, and nowhere does the article say Europeans first discovered America. The Solutrean hypothesis is disproved in various ways including the genetic evidence and is not about the French, who didn't exist 21,000 years ago. Doug Weller talk 11:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't imply, at all, that Asians are Europeans, Doug Weller. I wish you would learn to comprehend what you read. The article says that Christopher Columbus wasn't the first European to discover America. It says that his discovery was preceded by Leif Erikson's. Both Columbus and Erikson were Europeans. That should have been obvious to you. People certainly did exist in France (modern-day France) 21,000 years ago. The USA got its freedom from the British 37 states ago. Are we to call the USA "Modern-day USA"? Is Donald Trump the president of modern-day USA? Please...enough is enough, already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 12:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Perhaps I could have been clearer, but I thought we were discussing the bit in the lead that says "Columbus was not the first European explorer" and Asians are irrelevant to that statement. And although obviously existed in France much further back than the Solutrean culture, archaeologists don't call them French. And no one would say that Caesar fought against the French. Your point about the USA isn't relevant to the issue of the terms academics use. Paine, you're right of course. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, perhaps you could have (and in all ways should have) been clearer here assuming English is your first language. If not, I think you should take the time to explore things you are seemingly unfamiliar with. Archaeologists do consider Solutrean culture a part of France's history. After all, Neanderthals lived on the Italian peninsula long before it was called Italy, and Latin was spoken there, and Neanderthal life on the Italian peninsula is considered a part of Italian history.

The reason people wouldn't say Caesar fought against the Frenchy is because "Frenchy" is an extremely derogatory and inflammatory term for the French. (I seriously wonder if your faux pas here is due to the English language being somewhat new to you.) A Roman male in Caesar's time was called "latinus" and a female was called "latina". When the Italian language supplanted the language Latin on the Italian peninsula, the term "latinus" was replaced by "latino" which is still the way to define a modern Italian male (or any male who speaks an Italic language derived from the language Latin of the Roman civilization). "latina" has remained the same word over the milleniums. One could say Caesar, a latino, fought the French who wound up becoming Latins, themselves.

My point about the USA is extremely relevant. George Washington is hailed by United Staters as their first president and the father of their country. Washington gained 13 free colonies (nowadays, called "states"). The USA has accrued 37 states since then. In 1976, the USA celebrated its bi-centennial which allegedly celebrated the country's 200 years of freedom. Meanwhile, only 13 of its states received freedom in 1776. (Hawaii and Alaska were acquired by the USA post-World War II for goodness sakes!) Yet, these 37 other states get included as a part of the USA's "freedom" and its history.

Regarding Leif Erikson, his voyage to America is sketchy. There's really no proof that L'Anse aux Meadows was the location of his supposed two-month stay in America. It's been suggested by Nordics, but not proven. I feel since Iceland is so geographically close to America, it's not unreasonable that Leif had had a temporary stay there. There were Vikings who claimed to have discovered America before Leif did about a millennium ago. However, the 21,000-year old French utensils found in the USA in the 19th Century are not to be taken lightly. Seemingly, the French reached the Americas (in what is now called the United States of America) 20,000 years before the Vikings noticed America. At any rate, the pivotal discoveries of America were made by the Asians and the 15th Century Latins (I'm not talking about the French discovery of 21,000 years ago considering the French are Latin people, too).

Lol, did I really type "Frenchy"? That's clearly a typo. My point was that archaeologists, at least the ones I've read on the subject, do not call the Solutreans French. (and I did it again, hit the 'y' key after typing French). There's a subtle difference between referring to a "French Solutrean" bipoint and calling the Solutreans French. Ah. The clue is your use of "United Stater". Talk:Latino#"Related national groups" section?. Never mind, you use words differently than most people. That's your prerogative but when you do that here it can get confusing. No point trying to lecture me on American history. My family has been in North America for just under 400 years. I'm finished with this. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Doug Weller, you're not really finished with this. You need to learn the correct term for someone who lives within the United States is "United Stater". America is two continents of countries (it's not a single country called the USA). It aggravates people worldwide when United Staters refer to themselves as "Americans" and the USA as "America". And, rightly so! Because Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Haitians, etc. are Americans.

When a US president is shown on foreign TV news saying "America is a great country...", the narrated translation in Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. is "The United States is a great country...". Ditto, when a US president is shown on foreign TV news saying "We Americans believe...", the narrated translation in foreign languages is "We United Staters believe..." So, you see...I don't use the word differently than most people. The world is not one big Anglo-Saxon community. There's a paltry amount of English-speaking countries on this planet and they're growing smaller.

In Latin Europe and Latin America, the United States is known as the "United States". United Staters are known as "United Staters". Didn't you notice Mexico's president said he told the president of the United States that Mexico wouldn't be paying for the wall between the USA and Mexico? The Mexican president didn't refer to the president of the US as the president of America. Why? Because there's no such thing as a president of America. At the moment, there are many presidents in America. And, the president of Mexico happens to be one of them. Your family might have been in North America for almost 400 years (a scant amount of time). But, evidently, like most North Americans, you don't get out much. Only 10% of North Americans have passports. You're not exactly people with any sort of amazingly long history and worldliness and it certainly shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 21:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so you've got an anti-American pov, I get it. I'm sure you know I meant the English word. If the French or Italians or Mexicans really generally use that English word I'm surprised. I'm very well aware of usage outside the US and why. Do you realise that comments like yours could be seen as racist? I know about the passport figures, but the US is such a huge country you can travel thousands of miles without a passport, something you can't do in most parts of the world. And we can visit Canada without a passport, ditto Mexico where a state-issued enhanced driver's license is sufficient. Myself, I'm a world traveller with family in Japan, the UK and France. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To editors Laura and Doug: I can see the good in both sides of this discussion, and I would like to say that this article is not really about who discovered what and when. This article is about an intrepid explorer who at one time was believed to be the first European to discover the Americas. That is the only reason that Eric the Red's son was even mentioned, since this article is not about Vikings nor anyone else who settled here. It is about Columbus and his life and explorations, and that is where the focus of this article should be. If the title were "Who discovered the American continents" or "Discovery of America", then we would want to mention all of the discoverers including those who hiked across the then-existing land bridge from Asia more than 10K years ago (the second link that's actually a redirect targets an article that does make those mentions). This article's scope need not be extended to all that, and yet, thank you sincerely, Lauracerffer for your input and welcome to Wikipedia!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're most welcome for my input, Paine Ellsworth. And thanks so much for your own input. I agree with you, this article is about Columbus's discovery. It does mention Leif Erikson briefly. However, it mentions nothing about the Asians crossing or the Solutrean discoveries. But, whatever...

Yes, Doug is finished with this and so am I. You come off far too much like a troller to me. And so far you've said little or nothing about anything that might improve this article, which is the actual purpose of this talk page. S'long.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you're not finished with this. Not just yet, Paine Ellsworth. I spoke the truth on this talk page. If it shattered your fragile self-importance...too bad, so sad. You and Doug Weller got taken down a peg or two by truths told here and, obviously, you didn't like it. Doug Weller called the French the derogatory and inflammatory term "Frenchy" and you've called me a troller. You've got some some crust! Oh, BTW, your welcoming me to the talk page was simultaneously ridiculous and pompous as I've been a member of Wikipedia for a lot of years. You...welcoming someone whose been a member for a number of years? Climb off it, Paine Ellsworth. Now, you're allowed to consider yourself finished with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Come off it. I said 'Frenchy' was a typo. It's a term I would never use and no one here who knows me would believe that I used it deliberately (and I'd hardly have been elected to the Arbitration Committee twice if I used such insulting terms). And Paine was talking about his view of your behavior, he didn't actually call you a troll. Your reply above is just insults. You've made 247 edits to Paine's over 130,000 and my 165,000. You're still new in experience. It's only in your eyes that anyone else has been 'taken down a peg or two' Doug Weller talk 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you clearly stated you were finished with this. Yet, you're back again. It's not nice to lie to people on-line, is it? (It makes you look bad whether you comprehend it or not.) Now then, I don't have an "anti-American pov" (you meant POV). As I've indicated, America is two continents with many countries. I've visited America many times. So, please stop with your anti-American drama queen foolishness. America doesn't specifically mean the US (whether you like it or not!)

Regarding racism, it's you who've made the racist comment by referring to the French in the derogatory term "Frenchy". You claim it was a typo, but you've done nothing to amend it. (Yeah, right! Some typo!) It's not nice to call inflammatory names on-line and then play the US blame game race card. Shame on you! Also, it doesn't matter how many edits you've made here. Welcoming someone who's been a member of Wikipedia for a number of years, as Paine Ellsworth did, is utterly bizarre.

Even more utterly bizarre is that you've said your family has been in North America for almost 400 years. And, indicated that you're a United Stater. Yet, I've noticed you didn't spell "realize" the US way. You've spelled it "realise" which is the standard British way of spelling the word. Your family has been in North America for nearly 400 years and you live in the US, but you don't spell "realize" the US way? Hmmm...are you anti-American (anti-US, that is) for your non-US spelling? Or, are you just a British person pretending to be a United Stater? Now, I'm not calling you a phony. But your non-US spelling of "realize" raises an eyebrow and is remarkably telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol. I'm an American living in the UK. My spelling is all over the place, sometimes British English, sometimes American. Typos (two) now fixed, my bad. Yep, I meant to finish but I didn't expect you to carry on the way you are and attack not just me but also Paine. It wasn't a lie, just an unrealistic desire. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, right! Whatever you say, Doug... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauracerffer (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia, not Aragon

Several modern historians argue that Columbus was not from Genoa but from Catalonia (Barcelona). Look at Reference no.17: Catalan. Writing Aragon is misleading since Barcelona isn't part of modern Aragon region. Unless you add "former kingdom of" Aragon.

Moreover "region of Spain" is right today, wrong at that time: Castile and Aragon were independent countries (different currencies, parliaments, government, laws, armies etc). Columbus claimed the new land for the crown of Castile. Catalan-speaking Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca, also Aragon were not allowed to trade with America until 1778, almost 300 years later --later than England for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jep Montfort (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Third voyage

While the section on the third voyage does a better job than Voyages of Christopher Columbus, it still downplays Columbus first reaching South America and that John II of Portugal was correct as to where it was. Both should be plain in the section, especially for readers unfamiliar with the geography of South American --Acjelen (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Christofer columbus was a spanish explorer HamSammich (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

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. Please be aware that Wikipedia includes only verifiable content supported by reliable sources in its articles. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Columbus isn't even Italian. It's so absurd. This is a disservice to the public. He spoke no Italian, Italy didn't even exist. Columbus did actually speak Castilian however aka Spanish. He also spoke Portuguese. His supposed native language, in the area he supposedly was born, and is in no way related to the Italian language (which derived from elswhere). He himself wouldn't have even known what an "Italian" even is. The concept would be so foreign to him. It's hilarious. Italy didn't become a country until 1861 or w/e 107.0.114.14 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Origin

The most widely accepted hypothesis is that Christopher Columbus was Cristoforo Colombo, from Genoa, and over 200 texts document the life of that Cristoforo Colombo. Also, the discoverer referred to himself as a Genoese in his deed of primogeniture of 1498, although many scholars contest the authenticity of this and other documents.

However several lines of evidence question that Columbus could be Genoese and point instead to a Catalan origin; he would be Cristòfor (or Cristòfol, or Joan) Colom rather than Cristoforo Colombo. Throughout Columbus’s life, he was never referred as Colombo; before 1492, his contemporaries called him Colom, and also Colomo (cultured castilianization of Colom), and after the first voyage, he was almost exclusively referred to with the Spanish form Colón (vulgar castilianization of Colom). He wrote in Castilian (aka Spanish) with lexical mistakes and phonetical misspellings that are typical of a Catalan native speaker. He wrote using Catalan typography. He had a Catalan nobiliary shield. He had sailed from very young age and died as a very old man (70 as per modern forensic study) what's impossible with the Genoese. He was treated as a foreigner by Castilians, but he said "our king" many times (Catalonia and Castile were independent countries just sharing the king).

According to Ulloa and Merril, the Catalan Cristòfor Colom was a nobleman who had fought against Castile, then becoming a corsair, then escaping to Portugal and willing to obscure his past, while Genoese Cristoforo Colombo was a modest wool carder and cheese merchant with no studies nor maritime training, whose age does not match that of Columbus, and it is unlikely that a poor educated carder would know Catalan-style cartography, marry a Portuguese noblewoman as Columbus did, or would get a big loan from the king of Aragon.

As published in Nature a genetic analysis is on the way to settle this dispute. In 2006, genetic analysis confirmed that the remains of Columbus located in the cathedral of Seville match those of his two sons. Now new analysis are on the way to compare Christopher Columbus and sons’ Y-chromosome haplotype with that of extant North Italian Colombo and Catalan Colom men; a match, with the pertinent statistical assessment, could indicate which is the most likely origin of the discoverer. The results are expected by the end of 2017.

In my opinion your article looks incomplete and old-styled. It lays comfortable in some classic conventions that might very soon become obsolete, lacking the vivid debate among modern historians and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCarreter (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of non mainstream hypotheses, and they, including this one, are covered at Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. I note that Merrill doesn't seem to have found an academic publisher for his book. We'll see what the genetics show if there's a peer reviewed paper. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I also note that the Nature article says CC's Y chromosome would have to be retrieved, has that been done? Doug Weller talk 20:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Add the Galician origin

Can you add at least the Galician origin,please? I think it is the more realistic one, these are only a few reasons:

-In the XV century Galician and Portuguese are the same language born in the north west of the Peninsula four or five centuries earlier.

-The surname Colom can be traced back to Middle Ages in Pontevedra (Galicia), the m from Colom not Colon is the common spelling in XV-XVI century Galicia.

-All the names used by Colon to rename the places he conquered are names from Ria de Pontevedra (Pontevedras firth).

-The main boat used by Colon (Santa Maria) was made in Pontevedra

Apart from that if you understand Spanish you can read a lot about this theory here (you can use google to): http://www.cristobalcolon.gal/

this is an extrac (google translated)

Having dropped Christopher Columbus in oblivion before his death and did not begin to study until the beginning of the eighteenth century, it was mainly foreign historians who recovered the character and gave it the importance that really had.

On the other hand, the litigation for succession in the mayorazgo (1578 - 1606) did nothing but bring more doubts to his life, motivated by a multitude of false and adulterated writings, contributed by the litigants with the sole intention of winning a lawsuit Certainly tasty. The best known of all (1498) is the one where the famous phrases of:

"Being born in Genoa ... I came out of it and I was born in it ...", also "... nor in another end of the world did not fail a man of my true lineage who had been called and called him and his predecessors of Columbus ... in such case There is the woman who has arrived in debt and legitimate blood. "

In the 1498 testament, there are many irregularities:

The signature that appears does not correspond with the spelling of the Admiral and make several errors by placing the points that Christopher Columbus placed on each side of the eses. It is given as I live the Infante D. Juan when he died on October 7, 1497. When this document was presented, 80 years have passed since the events. He was not elevated to public deed. Several litigants took Pauline orders, or letters of excommunication issued in court for the discovery of some things suspected of having been stolen or maliciously concealed. They took their name because they were instituted by Pope Paul III. Several crossed out lines with different dates appear. The Galician twists that Christopher Columbus used so much in his speech and writing, appear in correctly Spanish in the one of 1506 and replaced in the one of 1498: aviamiento instead of aviamento, "señalar" instead of "aseñalar", to "sellara" instead of "asellara", "entienda" and "entiende" instead Of "intenda" and "intende", "asimismo" instead of "asimesmo", "almirantadgo" instead of "almirantado", "muestre" instead of "amostrar". The institution was not of its letter, the document was missing a leaf, the most important, and the court with signa that: "is not authentic or solemn" It appears signed by the Catholic Monarchs and their Secretary of State, Don Fernando Alvarez, who had died in 1501 and who had not signed for four years. The testament of 1506, granted in Valladolid, was the only one that was considered as indisputable to regulate the succession of the inheritance, titles and privileges, in it does not say that it was born in Genoa or anywhere, nor does it mention any town Of Italy or of the genovesate, neither distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate relatives and nor does it include the exclusion of any surname except the "de Colón".

Approaching the Fourth Centenary of the discovery of America, the Italian nationalists ( Mussolini) find in Christopher Columbus the propitious figure to extol with such a glorious personage to the Italian nation, but for this it would be necessary to create the personage, why? Christopher Columbus only knew what some chroniclers had said, that he was a Genoese, because they had heard it said so. The city of Genoa orders fourteen volumes between 1892 and 1896, in order to underpin the Genoese nationality of the admiral, it is when the "colombo" appears as a solution to so much mistrust, mediatically proved effective, however the personage who became known "Cristóforo Colombo ", Does not fit with that of the discoverer of the New World," Christopher Columbus "

Please understand that we do not make edits based on chains of reasoning. We make them based on reliable sources. As editors, we are in no position to evaluate the legitimacy of the claims themselves. The best we can do is evaluate the cultural consensus about the reliability of a source. Strebe (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christopher Columbus. 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/20110720141623/http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S1135-76062010000100002&script=sci_arttext to http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?pid=S1135-76062010000100002&script=sci_arttext

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Illness and Death section correction.

Under the Illness and Death section, a sentence reads, "1542, the remains were transferred to Colonial Santo Domingo, in the present-day Dominican Republic." There's no source listed supporting that year; the closest source [92] at cervantesvirtual.com says only that his ashes were moved from Santo Domingo to Havana in 1796. It never says when the ashes were moved from Seville to Santo Domingo. There are other sources(see below) indicating the year of the move from Seville to Santo Domingo as 1537, and without something more definitive, that's what Wikipedia should say as well, or at the vary least, it should address differing dates in sources.

References

It's my first time requesting a correction, so any corrections on how I've done so here would be appreciated.

MSDawson (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)MSDawson 14:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This response seems to me to be inappropriate. The instructions in the {{edit semi-protected}} template only require consensus to be obtained "[f]or any change that might be controversial". I see nothing controversial in the changes suggested by editor MSDawson. The sources he cites do indeed say that Columbus's remains were transferred to Santo Domingo in 1537, and the article's statement that this occurred in 1542 does indeed seem to be unsourced.

There is, in fact, a hopeless confusion in the literature about whether, when, or by whom, Columbus's remains were ever taken to San Domingo. Some source say that it was Columbus's daughter-in-law, María de Toledo y Rojas, who took the remains there, while others say it was her son, Luis. Most sources give a year in which the remains were supposedly transported to Santo Domingo, but some only give a year when they were supposedly interred there, and these two dates cannot be presumed to be the same. Common years given for the transfer or interment include 1536, 1537, 1541 and 1542. Here is a selection of sources, all ostensibly reliable—with the exception of Irving—, but containing various, mostly conflicting, accounts:

• Valerie Flint, Christopher Columbus entry in the current edition of Encyclopedia Britannica: "In 1542, … Columbus’s bones were laid … in the Cathedral of Santo Domingo, …" [emphasis added]. Neither when they were transported to Santo Domingo, nor who transported them, is specified.
• Charles Raymond Beazley, Columbus, Christopher entry in the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica: "Exhumed in 1542, the bodies of both father and son [Christopher and Diego Columbus] were taken over sea to Hispaniola and interred in the cathedral of San Domingo." Who took them is not specified.
• Carol Delaney, Columbus and the Quest for Jerusalem, p.247: remains "taken" to Santo Domingo in 1541. Who took them is not specified.
• Miles Davidson, Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined, p.465: One "school of thought" holds that the remains never left Las Cuevas. "Other evidence indicates that at some undeterminable time [they] were transferred to Santo Domingo". A manuscript from 1571 indicates that the remains of Columbus and his son Diego were brought to Santo Domingo by Diego's widow, María de Toledo. According to Davidson this would have to have occurrred in either 1538 or 1544, presumably because it is known that those are the only years when Maria de Toledo travelled from Spain to Hispaniola.
• Helen Nader, Burial Places of Columbus entry, p.78 in The Encyclopedia of Christopher Columbus: "About 1541, the transfer [of remains] from Las Cuevas to La Española was carried out by Diego's son, Luis Colon, … "
• Laurence Bergreen, Columbus: The four Voyages 1492–1502, p.412: "… in 1536, the third admiral, Luis Columbus, transferred the remains of father and son [Christopher and Diego] … to the Cathedral of Santa Maria la Menor in Santo Domingo …"
• Washington Irving, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (3rd edition, abridged), p.305 (footnote): "In the year 1536, the bodies of Columbus and his son Diego were removed to Hispaniola …". While Irving is not now regarded as a credible source, his biography was widely regarded as authoritative during the 19th century, so it might be the ultimate source of later biographies' specifications of 1536 as the year of transfer of the remains.

In view of all this, Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view requires it not to specify 1542 (or any other specific year) as the year when Columbus's remains were transferred to, or interred at, Santo Domingo.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Journal Error

Near the end of the bit about the first voyage, the wikiarticle says, "in the ensuing clash one Spaniard was stabbed in the buttocks and another wounded with an arrow in his chest." However, the Columbus' journal actually says it was the Indians who were stabbed in the buttocks and wounded with an arrow by the Spaniards. This is unambiguous - if one follows the citation provided in wikiarticle, anyone can see it was the Indians who were stabbed/shot by the Spanish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike.fish314 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how that happened, but I've fixed it. Thanks! Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:47, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: an earlier version stated that "in the ensuing violence two were stabbed to death", which doesn't appear to be supported by the source. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange terminology on Columbus's son

"Beatriz, unmarried at the time, gave birth to Columbus's natural son Fernando Columbus in July 1488, named for the monarch of Aragón. "

What other type of son is there? "Un-natural". Perhaps it's a term I am simply unfamiliar with, is it archaic? I believe what is meant here is "illegitimate", which there is a whole Wikipedia article on. It's unfortunate if the well accepted terminology for things isn't used in the encyclopedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(family_law)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there might be a difference in usage between British and other flavours of English. The online Oxford Dictionary of English tags the meaning "illegitimate" as archaic, whereas the online Merriam-Webster lists it without qualification (as does my printed edition of the Macquarie Dictionary, which may explain why I recognised the intended meaning without having to look it up). I'd say go ahead and change it.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 20:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

John Cabot

User:Benjahdrum has twice injected John Cabot’s discovery of North America as a qualifier to Columbus having been credited with establishing and documenting routes to the Americas. This edit is factually wrong; Columbus never visited North America (as Benjahdrum’s own original edit comment notes) and therefore Cabot could not have preceded Columbus to North America. Leif Erickson is noted because Erickson’s voyaged to the Americas (generically) preceded Columbus’s voyages to the Americas, generally. Cabot did not precede Columbus in any sense: neither to the Americas, because Columbus preceded Cabot by five years; nor to North America specifically, because Columbus never visited North America. It is reasonable to note Cabot’s discovery of North America somewhere in the article (which the article already does). It is not reasonable to claim that Cabot “preceded” Columbus any more than it would be reasonable to claim that Vasco Núñez de Balboa “preceded” Columbus to the Pacific or Ponce de Leon to Florida or Magellan to the Straits of Magellan. I have reverted this edit again. 19:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strebe (talk • contribs)

You keep saying that Columbus never visited North America, which is patently false and immediately dismissed by the basic fact that he landed in Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica. Last time I checked every single one of these countries belong to North America, not South America. This is basic geography, bro, about as basic as you can get. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your favored definition of North America isn’t universal, PericlesofAthens, and is irrelevant to the conversation about Cabot. If you have something to contribute to the Cabot conversation, let’s hear it. Bro. See the North America#Extent Wikipedia article’s section, which is about as basic as you can get. Bro. Strebe (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion

There is a section where the neutrality is disputed, yet I don't see the discussion on this talk page. What gives? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion was archived to here.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the dispute still under discussion or has it been resolved yet? —howcheng {chat} 16:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. The disputed neutrality template was added by editor HenryV1415 (talk), so you could ask him. There have been lots of disputes over that section, which I've never taken much interest in.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's wise to retain accusations about the brutality of Columbus, his brothers, and his men, while pointing out that, demographically speaking, this hardly made a dent in the Taino population compared to the ravages of Old World diseases like smallpox. There are a couple small (but well-sourced) paragraphs at the end of that sub-section which are devoted to that concept, but it makes up a tiny portion of the sub-section overall, leaving things rather unbalanced and perhaps with undue weight. The reader should be able to understand this concept right away, not at the tail-end of the sub-section. As for Samuel Eliot Morison's claims that Columbus was the instigator of a genocide (which goes completely uncontested here), one should also weigh this appropriately considering the fact that Columbus, having a relatively small handful of Europeans to rule and govern the island, was absolutely dependent on the natives for sustenance and labor, forced or not. If his aim was to wipe out the natives then it would have been an absurdly self-defeating one, especially since he professed that one of his main goals was to spread Christianity to the natives. Killing them all systematically, Third-Reich style as the article almost suggests here, seems counterintuitive and outright contradictory to his former goal of spreading the faith. In other words, was he a systematically genocidal warlord like his near contemporary Timur the Lame in Asia, or was he just an insufferable dickwad who over the course of seven years had maybe several thousand people killed, some of them with brutal mutilation (according to Las Casas)? We don't have strong demographic information for pre-Columbian Hispaniola, but I think it's safe to say any significant drop in population came from death by disease, not necessarily Columbus trying to imitate his contemporary Vlad the Impaler.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

+1 Strebe (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly tend to concur with PericlesofAthens on this point. Enough of the content of this section contains historical claims that would require a near-complete reimagining of the legacy of Columbus, while lacking sufficient scholarly collaboration of such claims that it would be irresponsible of Wikipedia to leave it up as is without some kind of qualifying preface with regards to the section's neutrality. Especially considering the widespread politicization of this issue in a uniquely polarized American political landscape, we must always be wary to separate partisan scholarship from that of an impartial historian. It does seem as though those who have contributed to this section have conflated the actions of Columbus himself as an individual and the undeniable impact that the introduction of Old World diseases to the New World's inhabitants. To characterize the widespread death of Native populations as genocide represents a gross mischaracterization of historical fact and judging the means solely on basis of the ends. Although European pathogens transported to the New World on Columbus' ships did have the effect of a near genocide on the Native populations encountered by Columbus and his men, the use of the term genocide implies an amount of malicious intent that Columbus certainly did not possess. As David Wilson above aptly noted, if Columbus' stated primary intent was to spread Catholicism to Natives, genocide hardly seems a viable means to achieve such ends. It seems as though today many groups on the political left have championed a movement to change the traditionally accepted history of Columbus' "discovery" of America, for better or for worse, into one in which Columbus brutally massacres, wrongfully imprisons, violently tortures, and indiscriminately enslaves indigenous peoples. As with most like issues, I suspect, based on my own readings of primary and secondary sources, most of which are listed in the bibliography of this page, that the truth in the matter lies somewhere between the comically simplistic American origin myth of Columbus sailing the ocean blue propagated by the right and the slanderous efforts of modern scholarship of the left. To argue, however, that Columbus Day ought not be celebrated based on a highly questionable rewriting of history, as has taken place up and down the west coast of America, is an unnecessary step that really doesn't change anything of consequence for Native Americans in the twenty-first century. If we want to significantly help Native Americans in a positive and consequential way, I would suggest we refocus political capital in places where the impacts might actually be felt by the people themselves, as opposed to simply renaming a holiday in the name of political correctness. Sorry it got a little opinionated by the end, didn't think anything was too controversial, though.

andrewwegge (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Founder of slave trade?

The article claims Columbus "founded the transatlantic slave trade." What is the primary historical source for this claim? Also, the article is about Columbus, and not about "historians" blaming Columbus for "genocide." If Columbus committed genocide, then it should be part of the biography with primary historical sources supporting the claim; otherwise, the article becomes hearsay, and innuendos based on propaganda. Columbus did not genocide anyone, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 777rafael (talk • contribs) 23:46, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

the article becomes hearsay, and innuendos based on propaganda Welcome to articles about history or politics on Wikipedia! Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems as though some of the politically motivated "history" crept out of the section prefaced with a neutrality warning. The page on Atlantic Slave Trade contain's Columbus' name only once, and that is in a tangentially related book in Further Reading. Beyond the fundamental historical inaccuracy of this claim, Wikipedia should remove this portion simply out of principle. Failing to remove this makes Wikipedia effectively self-contradictory, as Columbus is here sighted as the very founder of the Atlantic Slave Trade, but his name is not once mentioned in the content of the Wikipedia page dedicated to the Atlantic Slave Trade. I would certainly do it myself, but the same people who probably snuck in this historically inaccurate claim have tried to spread their political opinions throughout the page, leading to its semi-protected status. I pray someone with the administrative powers to change this sees this comment and takes action accordingly. Inconsistencies like this one are the exact reason why Wikipedia isn't more widely accepted as a reliable source of historically accurate information.

AndrewWEgge (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Compensation

Don't know if this is possible, but it would be good information to add if possible: How much is "12,000 maravedis" in today's currency? -- or at least, some idea of the value? Jdevola (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea to show how much Columbus was paid a year to keep his ideas to himself. The trouble is the value of maravedis changes so much over a 100 year period. In 1497 a gold Escudo = 16 Reals = 544 Maravedies. So 12,000 Maravedies = 22 Reals = 1.5 Escudo. In real life comparison I have read that, at the time of Columbus, a cow cost about 2000 maravedies, a really nice house rented for 5,000 malavedies a month, and the governors salary was 360,000 malavedies a year. But it's such a rough estimate you'll have trouble sourcing it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

CNN Article: Was Columbus secretly a jew

I'll just leave this article here. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/20/opinion/garcia-columbus-jewish/index.html Considering its content, I find it difficult to believe there is any justification for this article not mentioning even a single time the multiple scholarly conclusions that Columbus was actually Jewish (secretly, a Marrano). 60.242.167.154 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is simply a reference to a prior documented theory, offering no new content. If the article should be added as a reference on the page, perhaps, the writer of this comment can contact the author. Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty, Frankenstein's Monster amd Spare Parts 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is a reference to a prior documented theory. But 'documented' is the key word here, and the CNN article also means the theory is taken seriously enough to be reported on by the media. My question is why is this theory not even mentioned in the main article. I do note there is a link to a separate article on 'theories of origin' for Columbus. But the main article makes absolutely no mention of the very real questions many have about his origin. This, to my mind, is misleading. I therefore think the main article should at least contain a (short) passage mentioning the questions about his background. This could in turn link to the main article about origin theories. I see no problem gathering the origin theory material into a separate article; it's just that the main Columbus article shouldn't ignore the question entirely, which it currently does. Leecharleswalker (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Discoverer, Visitor, Adventure, Tourist, Invader, Trader, Merchant, Naval Navigator, Explorer ...

I keep hearing about the discoveries, sometimes due to being lost, in distress, hunch, or other reasons, of inhabited places. If the place was inhabited, I'm pretty sure that the inhabitants had already found the location or land, prior.

First person from some region to have found an inhabited land previous unknown to people in the individual's or groups of individuals' and to inform others in or from their origin as to the known existence of another place would be more accurate.

One cannot find something that other's already know about. I would venture to say that the inhabitants knew where they were and possibly even had a name for the places or regions of the location already in existence. In some locations, existing names upon the time of arrival from someone of another land are still used in modern times. I seems the language of "discovery" need to be modified to something more appropriate.

I, myself, have been an adventurer sometimes I just use whim other time I could use hunch. Perhaps, I might see, smell or hear something that would lead me to further investigate. I've discovered unattended, fenced horses belonging to another person, climbed the fence, jumped on a nearby horse and went for a bare-back ride. However, I would be certain in writing that the owner of the horses was very aware of them, because when he caught me, he saddled up a horse for the other children that followed.

I was informed of an abandoned veterinarian clinic and taken for roller skating in the kennel. Someone else noticed and explored the kennel before me. Others that followed to the kennel destroyed and vandalized the former office. I discovered that in winter sitting on a small ledge in the corner of the building below the roof that I could comfortable remove my jacket.

With the recent destruction of a public statue of a Civil War Confederate Soldier, followed by the hack sawing leaving the metal base of a plaque commemorating the planting of a tree by a Civil War Confederate Soldier, the there is a lot of discussion of other statues, one in particular is of Christopher Columbus. Some of this was associated with protest's against the new US President by all of the people who exercised their right to vote, if they could do so legally in the streets, surely.

I do not care for the destruction of public property, like telephones or art work. If there is an agreement to remove these things, in my opinion, these things should be carefully removed and preserved in art or historical museums, like a lot of art work. Many things of the past which can be an integral part of history get destroyed when few artifacts remain, like art deco, even if preservation is understood. A lot of work goes into creating statues, furniture, facades, phone and the like, some of which is commissioned, rather than the idea of the artist or inventor. It is shameful for other's to senselessly destroy the labor of others. That energy could be used elsewhere being productive, instead. Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty, Frankenstein's Monster amd Spare Parts 02:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

If the place was inhabited, I'm pretty sure that the inhabitants had already found the location or land, prior. That’s not what “discovery” means. Discovery implies a perspective. We are not fools or provincials to announce that we have discovered such-and-such galaxy, even if, in the far future, we then “discover” that galaxy has been teeming with sentient life since before the solar system was born. Strebe (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

Change quoted reference #51, as it is incorrectly quoted from the source and without preceding context.

Columbus remarked that their lack of modern weaponry and metal-forged swords or pikes was a tactical vulnerability, writing, "I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased."[51]

It should be, "I do not see that it would be necessary, for these people are very simple as regards the use of arms, as your Highnesses will see from the seven that I caused to be taken, to bring home and learn our language and return ; unless your Highnesses should order them all to be brought to Castile, or to be kept as captives on the same island; for with fifty men they can all be subjugated and made to do what is required of them.‎" Stickerpack (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Columbus, of course, said neither the exact words requested nor the words given in the article, not having written to the the monarchs of Aragon and Castile in English. The text given is accurately quoted from a reliable source's translation of Columbus's text, and alternative translations that do not change the base meaning are also included in the note. Neither does the requested additional text significantly qualify or explain the meaning of the given text -- that the New World natives were susceptible to conquering by his sponsors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh so you're saying nobody can ever provide a better version of the quote? 60.242.167.154 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This is now in reference to citation #52, as I mistakenly referenced #51 or it changed. The point being the quote does not appear in the contents of the cited reference. Either find the appropriate reference, or change the quote to what is relevant in the cited source #52. There is a disconnect here, not necessarily are preference in translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickerpack (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two references cited in that footnote. The quotation given in the article proper is a verbatim copy of text from the first of these. Your preferred version comes from the second of them, and part of it is already quoted verbatim in the footnote as an alternative rendering of the version given in the article. There seems to me to be no reason whatever why the article must be required to give preference to the second of these versions over the first.

I have now amended the article by adding the pieces of text where Columbus remarks on the indigenous peoples' inferiority in the use of arms, and altering the preceding text to better reflect what seems to me to have been said in these translations of Columbus's words.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Map of 1st voyage

Is the map presented as the route for the first voyage correct? It does not match the textual description or the map above which shows the routes of all four voyages. This map looks more like the route of the third voyage.

Looks fine to me. Are you misled by the large scale of the detailed map versus the small scale of the map showing all voyages? Strebe (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Columbus. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/admiral.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029194507/http://umm.edu/news-and-events/news-releases/2005/christopher-columbus-suffered-from-a-fatal-form-of-arthritis to http://umm.edu/news-and-events/news-releases/2005/christopher-columbus-suffered-from-a-fatal-form-of-arthritis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Hello,I just wanted to point out that during four separate trips that started with the one in 1492, Columbus landed on various Caribbean islands that are now the Bahamas as well as the island later called Hispaniola. He also explored the Central and South American coasts. But he didn’t reach North America, which, of course, was already inhabited by Native Americans, and he never thought he had found a new continent. I think that this page should be slightly edited to say this, so I request you to let me edit this so the right information will be displayed on your page. Many thanks for your understanding and time that was consumed into reading this. Yours sincerely, ThaiSweetChilli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiSweetChilli (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Colombo is not born a Genova

Cristoforo Colombo was born in a village near Bettola in the province of Piacenza (Italy), still today there is the birth house, in the adolescent age the Colombo family moved to Genoa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.29.207.88 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Change "On" to "One" in the sentence "On recent historian noted, 'It was as if the suffering these diseases had caused in Eurasia over the past millennia were concentrated into the span of decades.'" (Section: Legacy, subsection: Criticism in modern scholarship, paragraph: 2, last sentence). Eaknudson (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eaknudson: Thanks. It's actually worse, as we always must attribute quotes to their author. I've done that, linked the author, and remove the statement that he's a historian as he isn't. There's more work to be done. I'm not sure that all quotes are attributed, and I note that we describe someone as having "lamented" which is editorial. I don't have time right now. Doug Weller talk 07:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)