Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Arbitrary break on discovery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed. Moreover, one could go further back because the entire American continent was "discovered" by natives millennia ago who penetrated through Alaska and populated the entire continent from Northern Canada to Tierra del Fuego in the South. And that is what it is all about, defining what is a contact between civilisations in modern times. Jcollmart (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jail time

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

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

This interpretation itself is problematic though. The historical record does not show clearly that the primary reason of his removal was because of his treatment of the natives. In fact, the primary source record shows that a much more complicated, nuanced set of reasons: the Spanish leaders who came with Columbus weren't making the immediate riches they expected, and there was constant mutiny against Columbus due to this and the fact that he wouldn't let the Spaniards run wholly amuck among the Indians. Las Casas said in History of the Indies that the Spaniards were much freer (to do harm to the Indians) under Bobadilla than they were under Columbus. Furthermore, it's important to note that Las Casas does explain thoroughly that the governors who succeeded Columbus, including Bobadilla, the man who was sent to arrest him, treated the natives far worse than Columbus. Those who came after Bobadilla even more so. In this case, it's hard to make the case that the crown wanted Columbus arrested because of his treatment of the natives, only to have him succeeded by people who were worse in that respect. (High School World History Teacher) 15:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Copyedit

Changed "The two earliest published copies of Columbus's letter on the first voyage aboard the Niña were donated in 2017 by the [[Jay I. Kislak Foundation to the University of Miami library in Coral Gables, Florida, where they are housed."

to

"The two earliest published copies of Columbus's letter on the first voyage aboard the Niña were donated in 2017 by the Jay I. Kislak Foundation to the University of Miami library in Coral Gables, Florida, where they are housed."

removing extraneous open brackets from the sentence. King keudo (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Change of introductory phrasing of quote.

I have changed a line from: Columbus observed that their primitive weapons and military tactics made the natives susceptible to easy conquest, writing, "the people here are simple in war-like matters ... I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased."

to: Columbus did not believe he needed to create a fortified outpost, writing, "the people here are simple in war-like matters ... I could conquer the whole of them with fifty men, and govern them as I pleased."

The first phrasing suggests to me that Columbus was assessing the military capabilities of the natives with regards to conquering them. The second phrasing suggests that he was assessing their abilities with regards to his need to defend himself. I believe these are quite different. Reading the cited source which includes material which has been removed in the wiki entry suggests to me that the second is more correct. Consider, for instance, the omitted part of the quote stating, "On it were six houses. I do not, however, see the necessity of thus fortifying the place, as the people here are ... " which is what I have paraphrased.

If the original wording is to be maintained, then I would suggest inclusion of the full quote so there is no confusion about whether the omitted sections are being accurately represented. A15730 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon stock

In the following text under the Legacy section, I changed the word "Anglo-Saxon stock" to "Protestant European origins". Here is the original text "The American Columbus myth was reconfigured later in the century when he was enlisted as an ethnic hero by immigrants to the United States who were not of Anglo-Saxon stock, such as Jewish, Italian, and Irish people, who claimed Columbus as a sort of ethnic founding father." My change was reverted by @Elizium23 who did not seem to understand my meaning in the use of the term "Protestant European origins."

The use of the term Anglo-Saxon is fraught, archaic and imprecise. England was Anglo-Saxon roughly between 410-1066 CE. The Norman Conquest in 1066 ended Anglo-Saxon England transforming it into an Anglo-Norman kingdom. Persons of English ancestry today are therefore not "Anglo-Saxons". The use of "Anglo-Saxon stock" is likely a reference to the term WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) which was coined in 1957 by Andrew Hacker. However, this term is problematic.

In the context of this article, "Anglo-Saxon stock" is meant to describe any American of northwestern European origin (not just England) who is also Protestant - including Irish Protestants. It is therefore an imprecise and archaic term. I have restored my version. IACOBVS (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

My apologies that I did not direct to the talk page in the edit summary. I was not trying to be rude. First, I really have no problem with the content of your edit. Furthermore, I dislike the use of reverts. In my opinion, they are done far too easily and are against the spirit of Wikipedia (see WP:ROWN) which is to encourage participation and edits. The exemption to this is that the edit should follow Wikipedia rules. In which case, we should try to edit it to meet the standards rather than reverting.

The problem here is that the cited sources for the edited part use the words "anglo" and "anglo saxon". So, I believe your edit is unsourced as it stands. As far as the idea that Anglo-Saxon is a poor term which is meant to mean something else, then I think that would be a synthesis because, again, none of the cited sources claim that. Please add an appropriate source which uses your wording. Failing that, I think you could add a footnote to the current text with your explanation. A15730 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair points. Even though I think the term is inaccurate and archaic, I am not invested enough in this article to provide cited sources for an alternative terminology. Granted, most recent sources would not use deprecated terms like "Anglo-Saxon stock". But I will let it stand.IACOBVS (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Change of Voyage Heading

Changed first subheading under "Voyages" from "Discovery of America" to "First voyage". Not sure this needs a justification, as it is definitionally incorrect (you cannot discover something millions of people knew about before you). But, the concept of 'discovery' is regarded as highly problematic (e.g. "Unsettling Truths. The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery" by Mark Charles and Soong-Chan Rah; "The Land is Not Empty" by Sarah Augustine; "Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies" by Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt, and Tracey Lindberg; and Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands by Lindsay G. Robertson). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.44.192.140 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this needs a justification, as it is definitionally incorrect (you cannot discover something millions of people knew about before you). As has been discussed many times here, this simple definition renders the word practically useless: it’s rare to know for certain that something was never known or found previously. Discovery inevitably incorporates a point of view and inevitably is subject to how broadly the discovery is noised. I don’t care much about the edit under discussion, but it gets pretty tedious repeatedly pointing out the obvious: Nobody ever thought Columbus discovered America for the native peoples of America. Strebe (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Additionally, the article is about Christopher Columbus. The section is now titled "Voyages". Yet, it only talks about four voyages. Columbus made many more than those four voyages in his life. So, why are they being singled out? If someone can think of better wording, go for it, but simply re-naming this section as "Voyages" seems to be an oversimplification. A15730 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus' Introduction

As I cannnot edit, I propose some updates on the Chrispher Colombus to provide a more updated, fair and neutral description attending the highly disputed and argued topic.

The claim that Columbus is from Genoa has not been corraborated yet with a solid evidence. However, Wikipedia is claiming it as a true fact with old and not scientific evidences (even in the fact box of the page). This, among other things, have led to the spread of a possible but not yet corrobarated fact. To provide a realistic and neutral position, Wikipedia must change that.

I propose to rewritte the Christopher Columbus' entrance with a more fair introduction backed up by scientific evidences from reputable sources instead of information from interested parties, non-scientific books and encyclopaedic sources that could be taking one version as granted wihtout evidence.

• Changes on the introduction:

Christopher Columbus[a] (/kəˈlʌmbəs/;[3] born between 25 August and 31 October 1451, died 20 May 1506) was [removed part] an explorer and navigator who completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean sponsored by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, opening the way for the widespread European exploration and colonization of the Americas. His expeditions were the first known European contact with the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Columbus's origins have not been yet varified and are widely disputed. [Add:] The main evidences locates his origens either as Catalan or Ligurian.

• Remove the sentence from the introduction as this is not true and there is no evidence. It also contractics with the current explanations on the section Early Life: Scholars generally agree that Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa and spoke a dialect of Ligurian as his first language.

• Early life section. I propose some changes to provide a more backed up and neutral description than the currect one:

Columbus's early life is obscure, but scholars believe he was [removed part] born between 25 August and 31 October 1451.[11] His father was Domenico Colombo, a wool weaver who worked in Genoa and Savona and who also owned a cheese stand at which young Christopher worked as a helper. His mother was Susanna Fontanarossa.[12] He had three brothers—Bartolomeo, Giovanni Pellegrino, and Giacomo (also called Diego)[2]—as well as a sister named Bianchinetta.[13] [Moved to here, to improve the reading:] In 1470, the Colombo family moved to Savona, where Domenico took over a tavern. His brother Bartolomeo ran a cartography workshop in Lisbon for at least part of his adulthood.[14]

[Moved after the previous paragraphs, it fits better for the reader here:] In one of Colombus' writings, he says he went to sea at the age of fourteen.[15]

His native language is presumed to have been a Genoese dialect although Columbus probably never wrote in that language.[15] His name in the 16th-century Genoese language was Cristoffa Corombo[16] (Ligurian pronunciation: [kriˈʃtɔffa kuˈɹuŋbu]).[17] His name in Italian is Cristoforo Colombo, and in Spanish Cristóbal Colón.[18][19]

• This sentence from Early life that follows the previous paragraph does not hold. It provides old citations from books, not even scientific citations, and the dispute among scholars is still going on, so remove.

[Remove:]These competing hypotheses generally have been discounted by mainstream scholars.[22][23]

• Adding a final remark, so all the most commont hypothesis are presented in brief but treating them as equal, until hopfully someday we will have proof of Colombus' origin.

[Add:]As of today, the Colombus' origins are still argued. Some modern authors have argued that he was from a Catalan region region of Spain[20], from the Lingurian region of Italy, from Portugal[21] and France.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by G41111 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The consensus among historians is that he was from Genoa Barjimoa (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Question: Greetings Barjimoa, but I'm afraid I'm a little confused. You possess sufficient permissions to edit the page and I don't see you listed under WP:RESTRICT/WP:AEL. Why do you claim that you cannot do so? If you are creating an edit request as a means of garnering consensus as to whether you should make these alterations, then that would not be an appropriate use of them. Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits. You would instead leave this section as is without the template and await input, and if that fails try WP:3O or WP:RFC. —Sirdog (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I was answering the other user, i accidentally merged my comment with his, sorry.Barjimoa (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies Barjimoa, I was unaware another user made the comment. Reviewing the page history they are a new user who did not sign. I've inserted their signature above. —Sirdog (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello G41111, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you wish to contest the validity of sources provided on the page (i.e, challenge that it is not agreed amongst historians that Christopher Columbus is from Genoa) you would start a consensus discussion here. Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits to pages that users do not have the technical ability to edit. —Sirdog (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

'European exploration and colonization of the Americas' should be replaced by 'European exploration (invasion) and colonization of the Americas' The exploration in this context is too Euro-centric. Above all, the word is quite derogatory to the native people of America. It is literally unethical and shameful claim that the Europeans discover the continent. 130.192.113.18 (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This will clearly be contentious, and will require consensus before implementation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

Add more detail 72.134.227.113 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2023 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Voyages section should be removed and merged with the Voyages of Christopher Columbus article

This section duplicates almost all the information from the separate article https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus. However the 2 article are not identical and sometimes contradict each other. e.g. in this article it says Columbus used the tables of Abraham Zacuto to predict the lunar eclipse, while the other article says he used the tables of Regiomontanus. Tomrosenfeld (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Change Attribution of Columbus' Nationality from Italian to Genoese

Both in the article, and in the search thumbnail description for "Christopher Columbus" he is described as an "Italian explorer and navigator." This is justified by a note that cites Pliny the Elder to say that a Latin equivalent of the word Italian was used since "antiquity," which I assume means since the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, numerous sources also referenced on the same page establish that his nationality was having been born in the Republic of Genoa.

I would like to appeal to the principle that the purpose of this encyclopedia entry should be to inform and educate, and that referring to Columbus' nationality as Italian is more likely to lead the reader to misunderstand the history of the region that is now part of the modern Republic of Italy, by causing an uninformed reader to project their current understanding about Italy as a state, political entity, nationality, language and ethnicity onto the historical period that was contemporary to Columbus.

Around 1451, the Republic of Genoa was its own distinct political entity, conferring a Genoese nationality its citizens, and there was a distinct Ligurian language that had aspects of cultural and ethnic identity that are different from a modern Italian cultural, linguistic and ethnic identity.

The existing citations around Columbus being born in Genoa and speaking Ligurian should be sufficient to establish this change. The reference to Pliny the Elder may establish that there was terminology around a concept of a region of the Roman Empire that was grouped together and referred to as Italian, but it does not establish that Columbus or other contemporaries in the Republic of Genoa would have an Italian identity that was primary, superseding and more salient to them than their Genoese identities and nationality. Furthermore, even if there was an Italian designation during the Roman Empire at the time of Pliny the Elder, that does not establish that this was a meaningful distinction over a millennium later in the Republic of Genoa.

To be clear: referring to Columbus as "Italian" does more to confuse and misinform the reader by appealing to a concept that they are familiar with that is out of context, rather than referring to him as "Genoese," which gives the reader more information about Columbus' actual nationality, which has the capacity to cause further curiosity and learning on the part of the reader, as they learn more about the Republic of Genoa, the Ligurian language, and the history of the region known today as Italy, which was not unified as a political entity until the mid to late 1800's (400 years after Columbus' birth) and has only been in it's current form that readers are familiar with as the Republic of Italy since 1946 (500 years after Columbus' birth). SiciliaOliva (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We've had this discussion many times before, found above on the talk page and numerous times in the talk page archives. The result has always been to leave it at "Italian", which is considered a superset of "Genoese", both currently and historically. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to revisit and continue this discussion.

I don't feel the reference to Pliny the Elder is sufficient to establish the claim of "Italian" as a "superset" related to the historical Republic of Genoa, which would be the political entity referring nationality to Columbus.

The other referrences already establish Genoese nationality, and because the term "Italian" has current associations with nationality, the term "Italian" is actually misleading as related to nationality.

Changing it to "Genoese" gives more information to the reader. Adding associations of "Italian" actually leads to the reader being more confused about Columbus' nationality, and misunderstanding the history of Italy. SiciliaOliva (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think it should stay as "Italian", but agree we need to find a better source - one that actually mentions Columbus for a start, and describes him as Italian. ITBF (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the Pliny the Elder citation is insufficient to establish "Italian" as a meaningful disctinction related to Columbus, as it is over a milennia removed from Columbus' period, and was referring to a different political order, the Roman Empire, and the Republic of Genoa did not exist during that time. However, you are also asserting that you have a kind of opinion or "gut feeling" that it should be

"Italian," but no strong evidence. SiciliaOliva (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree with ITBF: I don't think the article says that his nationality was Italian, and the note makes it clear that Italy did not exist. Therefore, it seems to me that it must be an ethnic designation. As far as confusion about his roots, the article is very clear that most believe he was born in Genoa. I don't think this is confusing at all. Anyways, the question really is whether or not it is accurate and cited. I ask which of the current references explicitly refer to him as a Genoese citizen or state that he held Genoese citizenship? I checked several which agree that he was likely born there, but I do not think that is the same thing and making that jump may violate WP:NOR. Thank you. A15730 (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An important point is that the labels that are typically affixed to how individuals are identified in their articles and search thumbnails are typically their nationality, not their ethnicity. Case in point: Stanley Kubrick is identified as "an American film director, producer, screenwriter, and photographer." The formula here is: nationality + occupation. Ethnically, he was from a Jewish family, and the article mentions that, but does not give him that label. Also, he lived most of his life in England and was married to a British woman, but he is still identified as American for being born and raised in the USA and having significant professional ties to the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrick

SiciliaOliva (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not only is your comment a lot of information, it won't persuade anyone to your point of view because it's far too long—no one's going to read it. Carlstak (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If a decision is going to be made based on the most accurate information, it's important for the community to be able to consider the information.

I don't see what your comment adds to the discussion of whether Genoese is a more accurate label for Columbus' nationality, and whether Italian is inaccurate and misleading. SiciliaOliva (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

TLDR: I have elided the main points of above comment, other than the discussion of ethnicity and language above, and reiterated a summary here:

1. The template for the first label used to identify people on Wikipedia is: nationality + occupation. Example: Stanley Kubrick = American filmmaker.

2. Sources establish Columbus' birth in the Republic of Genoa, identify Columbus' father as "Domenico Colombo, a Genoese wool worker and merchant" and describe the Republic of Genoa as being an independent city-state that included popular representation and popular assembly for its citizens.

3. Columbus had well established ties to the Bank of Saint George in Genoa throughout his life.

4. Rebutting the claim that labeling Columbus as "Italian" for ethnic reasons is justified. This entails examining the definition of ethnicity and refuting that on a nationality or cultural level he would be more Italian than Genoese. Relevant to this is the existence of both a state related to Genoa, but also a unique language in Genoa: Ligurian. Discussion of language and ethnicity is further discussed to establish that no official national language for Italy was recognized until 1925, and the modern republic only made it an official language in 1999, but also recognized a number of obscure languages that are specific to regions of Italy. SiciliaOliva (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At this point you are bludgeoning the page, which "is undesirable and considered a form of disruptive editing". Carlstak (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The page you linked to about bludgeoning says at the top: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

There is a guideline on the landing page for this talk page that says "be welcoming to newcomers" and it links to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

That page says in bold: "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience." That page also says at the top: "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline."

I am new to attempting to edit semi-protected articles. I was attempting to follow the guidelines that I found around requesting an edit on the talk page. Maybe it was an assumption that because I am requesting the edit, that it is my responsibility to substantiate the case for why this edit is necessary, and support it with valid information. I gave you those 4 TLDR points because it sounded like you were asking for a shorter summary of my points.

In discussion with another user, through civil dialogue, I did realize that even "de-listing" Columbus as "Italian" that is to describe him in the beginning of the article and thumbnail by his occupation, but avoiding a nationality label, if that is controversial or susceptible to bias, that would address some of my core critiques, such as the insufficiency of the single source for the "Italian" label, and would provide a more neutral point of view (which is a Wikipedia guideline) that would let the rest of the information on that page speak for itself. SiciliaOliva (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I applaud your obvious passion for the subject, but you need to understand how wikipedia works. The purpose of wikipedia is to report cited, reliable information. I noted that I agree with ITBF, specifically the statement that there is a "need to find a better source - one that actually mentions Columbus for a start, and describes him as Italian." This is with regards to listing him as Italian. If the request is to de-list him as Italian, I don't have an immediate objection to that as I didn't see that specific claim in the sources cited. As far as listing him as Genoese, I also don't see that cited. You are presenting a lot of information, but it is not our job to look at that and draw conclusions. That is the definition of original research which is against wikipedia policy. Rather than all that info, you need to compile reliable sources which say something very close to "Columbus was a Genoese explorer". The argument that these other things clearly indicate that he was a citizen of Genoa are not convincing to me and not acceptable per wikipedia policies as far as I understand them-- This is just my opinion. A15730 (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement and engagement. At this point, the core of my critique would be satisfied by, as you say "to de-list him as Italian," as in just remove the word "Italian" in immediately identifying him in the article and search thumbnail. The beginning of the article and thumnail would then just identify him by his occupation, and then the article itself would describe his connections to Genoa, as it already does.

This solution also would meet the guideline of neutral point of view for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

This would be a simple fix that would not require establishing him as "Italian," would not take more evidence, and it is actionable now, whereas it might take me more time to review sources that refer to Columbus with the direct nationality of Genoese. I feel that even the fact that he was born in Genoa, and Italy as a state was not in existence, to be sufficient alone, but if it's controversial, I feel that removing the word "Italian" from identifying him addresses both my critique of the Pliny the Elder source, as well as my concerns about how bias is a large part of why Columbus has been given an unquestioned "everyone knows" assumption of Italian nationality or ethnicity (for the previously stated reasons of USA propaganda around Columbus Day and ethnic pride / nationalistic propaganda related to the rise of European ethnic nation states).SiciliaOliva (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)— SiciliaOliva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You are bludgeoning the page, trying to dominate the conversation, and it is disruptive. Carlstak (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Three points:

1. Encyclopediae are tertiary sources and are not favored for wikipedia. See: wikipedia:reliable sources

2. I am intrigued enough to review the archive pages and see why he was listed as "Italian". If I find that it is truly just a case of "Everyone knows", I will be inclined to change it and re-open a discussion. I doubt that is the case, but assuming things is not good form.

3. Please do read the link given by Carlstak. It is not a personal attack on you, but good advice on how to proceed within the wikipedia framework. A15730 (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I spent some time looking into this. Ignoring minority theories that Columbus was Portuguese, Greek, Spanish, Polish, etc. I learned two things. First, as suspected, the "Italian" designation is meant as a regional designation which includes Genoa. Second, with regards to its actual application to Columbus, the most on point discussion is found on page 7 of the archived talk:

{Nonetheless, to solve every doubt you may have about, I'll show you some passage from important chroniclers and scholars who were coeval of Columbus and who named him "Italian":

The Portuguese Rui de Pina wrote two works, Chronica d'El Rey, don Alfonso and Chronica d'El Rey, don Juan II. It has been ascertained that the manuscripts had been completed before 1504, although they were published in the Eighteenth century. Chapter 66 in the second manuscript, "Descubrimiento das Ilhas de Castella per Collombo," explicitly states, "Christovan Colombo italiano."

The Portuguese Garcia de Resende writes the Cronic de don Joao II between 1530 and 1533, and it was published in 1544. In chapter 165, "De como se descubriram per Colombo as Antilhas de Castella," he writes, "Christouao Colombo, italiano."

The Flemish Theodore De Bry published the HistoriaeAmericanae Secunda Pars conscripta a Jacobo Le Moyne dicto De Morgues in Frankfurt in 1591. In it is written, "Christopher Columbus the Italian Genoese (p. 4)".}

Some online research convinces me that this is true, and that there are actually more references than this. I understand the concern that, as written, readers may conflate their current political understanding of Italy with the historical reality. I don't find it confusing, however, and I can't think of a better way to write it off-hand. If someone else can succinctly address the concerns raised, please do so. A15730 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is helpful, A15730. I personally would call Columbus Genoese, but as these sources demonstrate, it is not incorrect or anachronistic to call him Italian. I bow to the community.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing more information about how this topic has been discussed and more resources. I find this a productive discussion that is leading me to do more in-depth reading of books on the topic.

As a result of your request for a certain kind of source or documentation I have actually found a published source that contains full text and references to primary documents that are contemporary to Columbus' life, were written in Genoa, and refer to Columbus' as a "citizen of Genoa":

The book quotes "the deed drawn up in Genoa on 25 August 1479 by the notary Girolamo Ventimiglia" which documents a mercantile agreement of money exchanged for a merchant trip to the island of Madeira to procure sugar, and names Columbus as a witness on the document, where he attests to his age as well. I am quoting directly the primary source, a document in Latin contained in this book, when I say Ventimiglia refers to Columbus as: "Cristoforus Columbus civis Janue." That means literally "Christopher Columbus, Genoese citizen."

One thing that I notice about the sources you provide that were previously part of the discussion is that they come from sources outside of Genoa and the historical territories that became Italy, therefore they are referring to a regional label given by outsiders, not identities, nationalities or ethnicities related to people within those territories. An analogue here is that during the Roman Empire, Rome was a city-state that accrued large territories within its empire and colonies, but the designation of a portion of those territories as "Italia" does not mean that that the people of those territories didn't have their own ethnicities and identities or that the state entity wasn't the city-state of Rome and its empire, or that there was any state called "Italia" at the time with a single ethnicity, nationality and identity. This is an objection to the validity of the label "Italian" in those sources, and whether that's the most relevant label for use on Wikipedia. As to whether its confusing, I think both of us were confused as to whether "Italian" was referring to nationality or ethnicity, and the answer from those sources is: neither. From what you are reporting, it sounds like "Italian" in the existing article it is referring to how outsiders referred to the general geographic region of the former Roman Italia.

I feel the source I provided is a more direct source contemporaneous to Columbus' lifetime, state and culture, to establish his nationality than the ones previously discussed in the Wikipedia discussion that were provided, and I ask that it be considered.

The same document that I quoted from above is one of the documents that is used to establish the approxiamate year of birth for Columbus that is contained already in the Wikipedia article. The book that I found contains more primary documents establishing Columbus' residence as a youth in Genoa, alongside his father and brothers, his father's landholding and role in Genoa government and politics, and links between the Columbus of Genoa documented in records there and the historical Columbus (Crisóbal Colón) who was an Admiral who served the Catholic Monarchs from the Iberian Peninsula.

This source also contains direct quotes and references to early historians of Columbus, such as Bartolomeo de Las Casas, a clergy member from Seville, whose father Diego was part of Columbus' second expedition, who crossed paths with Columbus and Columbus' son Diego, and is an important documentarian of the early history of colonization in the Carribean. In the Historia de las Indias, de Las Casas writes about Columbus in chapter 11: "this illustrious man was of Genoese nation, from somewhere in the province of Genoa."

More can be provided, as well as the published source containing these documents:

Taviani, Paolo Emilio. Cristoforo Colombo : Genio Del Mare. Roma: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Comitato nazionale per le celebrazioni del V centenario della scoperta dell’America, 1990. Print. SiciliaOliva (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No thanks to your overly long posts. You just added 5,025 bytes in a wall of text in one edit, plus some, and you've added 28,412 bytes to this page already. Your edits to this page are the only edits you've made to English Wikipedia, so you don't appear to be here to help build an encyclopedia, apart from changing the origin name of Columbus, and you are still trying to dominate the conversation. I'm certainly not reading your unnecessarily long comments, which demonstrate that you don't care at all about input from other editors. Carlstak (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

TLDR:

This source: Taviani, Paolo Emilio. Cristoforo Colombo : Genio Del Mare. Roma: Ministero per i beni culturali e ambientali, Comitato nazionale per le celebrazioni del V centenario della scoperta dell’America, 1990. Print.

Includes a direct quote from a primary document, "the deed drawn up in Genoa on 25 August 1479 by the notary Girolamo Ventimiglia" an official in Genoa, documenting a proceeding with Columbus testifying as a witness and identifies him with this direct quote: "Cristoforus Columbus civis Janue." That means literally "Christopher Columbus, Genoese citizen."

This source is a more direct source than was previously discussed in the talk about whether Columbus should be referred to as Genoese and Italian, and is the kind of source that A15730 was asking for. SiciliaOliva (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I hate to have to repeat points, but you are saying my posts are too long and that you don't want to read them, so I am giving you a shorter version. If you are concerned about data, I can shorten the previous posts as the information has evolved. This is the process of collaboration to find a better source between myself and A15730. Ignoring or disregarding information doesn't help the encyclopedia have better information. I have experience with research, so I could potentially be an asset to Wikipedia. I have to start somewhere and this looked like an oversight. I get that you don't like to read long posts, but please don't discourage my participation when I am contributing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ("This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline.")SiciliaOliva (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not an oversight. It's a tired old argument which we have been through several times before. It's entirely possible that every previous time we had this argument we were wrong, and your insight will suddenly correct that great wrong, but the odds are against it. A15730 listed several cases where contemporary accounts described him as Italian, which establishes the description is not outlandish. At some point, you have to know when to drop the stick and do something else. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I just found this prexisting Wikipedia page that lists a preponderance of evidence that has already been vetted and cited, that even links to some of the same sources that I found through reading books off of Wikipedia. This preponderance of evidence likely outweighs the 3 references which were considered decisive in the previous discussion. Please review the information here that has already made it through a Wikipedia review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus#Genoese_origin SiciliaOliva (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Enough. That he’s from Genoa isn’t disputed. The issue is how he’s described. Tarl N. (discuss) 09:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that there is early primary documentation from Genoa where he is described as a Genoese citizen, and there are contemporary documentarians who knew him that call him "of Genoese nation,' why is precedence given to "Italian," rather than "Genoese"?

As I am starting to look through the talk archive, I am actually seeing that this is a controversial topic, and I am not seeing a clean decision making process around dismissing requests for his nationality to be listed as "Genoese."

It may adhere to a neutral point of view best not to list a nationality, only an occupation in the thumbnail and introduction to the article, and then readers can draw their own conclusion based on the information provided in the rest of the article about his biography. It doesn't seem neutral to assert that "Italian" is not a controversial or problematic label when there are valid, including primary sources and contemporary that use the "Genoese" label, even and especially if there is a mix. It takes one side of the controversy to assert "Italian" on behalf of the readerSiciliaOliva (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As I am looking at the talk page on this issue, I am noticing that the discussion that was referrenced above about what referrences justify the label "Italian," which are on talk archive Page 7, that discussion happened in 2009.

Five years later, on talk archive page 12, someone complains because the page at the time listed Columbus as "Genoese" and not "Italian," which indicates that that previous discussion did not lead to a firm settled decision in 2009 to choose "Italian" as most appropriate description of Columbus, because 5 years later someone is complaining that the page says "Genoese" and not "Italian" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Columbus/Archive_12#%22Genoese%22_or_%22Italian%22?_Maybe_%22Genoese_(Italian)%22_would_be_the_best_option

Some time in more recent years, someone must have edited the page to say "Italian" because I see a similar issue being raised in more recent talks without much discussion or any group decision making evident. This reinforces that this is a contraversial issue that requires a more neutral point of view. SiciliaOliva (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I am also looking at the edit history, and this has been a contentious issue throughout the history of the article and the public facing article has changed many times between saying "Italian," "Genoese" and variations of neutral language not having a nationality label and sometimes appending language like "born in the Republic of Genoa, which is now part of Italy," or even just identifying him as "European."

The article used language other than "Italian" for long periods up until around April 2021, when it was changed without discussion. The footnote citing Pliny the Elder for why "Italian" is a label valid since "antiquity" was added in July 2021. There has been significant controversy on talk page since. This does not appear to be a long settled discussion with firm and extensive sources and references. SiciliaOliva (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You're wasting your time, SiciliaOliva, and everyone else's with your quixotic crusade. This is not how you effect change in an article. You will not succeed this way—you refuse to listen to what other editors are telling you, but expect them to read and respond to your ridiculously verbose posts. Some editors never learn and eventually are blocked or banned. You should be spending your time more productively. Over and out. Carlstak (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would just like to chip in and say that the original poster is probably right, but they definitely need to keep it short, not wind people up and bring sources. So, yeah, probably Genoese is better?Boynamedsue (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There isn’t a “right”. This is an editorial decision. Marco Polo editors chose “Venetian” instead of “Italian”, even though every consideration in play is the same. I think casual readers have a better sense for what “Italian” means than what “Genoese” (or is it “Genoan” or “Genovese”?) means. Meanwhile, it seems to me that the purpose of transmitting information is to be understood, not to be pedantic beyond use. Also meanwhile, reading beyond just the introductory paragraph, including the info box, makes it plain what his nationality was.

My take on this is that there are three levels of understanding that we are trying to write text for: (A) “I know what ‘Italian’ means; what the hell is ‘Genoese’”? vs (B) “There was no ‘Italy’ in Columbus’s time, you idiot!” vs (C) “Italy is an ethnographic distinction that persists through time, regardless of politics.” I think we address (A) and (C) by introducing Columbus as Italian, while, unfortunately, really irritating the (B) faction. Maybe it would suffice to say “ethnic Italian” rather than just “Italian”. I’m also fine with “ethnic Italian of Genoese nationality”, which, hopefully, addresses everybody except the conspiracy theorists. I’m probably not fine abandoning “Italian”, for the reasons I just gave. Strebe (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We have no evidence of Genoese nationality, just that he was born there. They are different. Some references specify his family ethnicity was likely of Spanish-Jewish origin (Britannica 15th edition, vol. 3, p. 476). Trying to solve (B) is a non-starter, it’s established he was referred to as Italian by roughly contemporaneous sources. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We have no evidence of Genoese nationality, just that he was born there. I’m confused about this claim. There isn’t anything wrong with SiciliaOliva’s sources (and all the other sources trotted out over the years) calling Columbus a “citizen of Genoa”. Strebe (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Retract that comment then. Had seen an argument that he left Genoa before adulthood, so he never was a formal citizen. Cloud have been dubious, was a long time ago. But the term Italian was in use at the time, so argument (B) seems flat false. Maybe blow it all away and say European? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll add further - my main concern on this issue is to avoid setting a precedent. If we can use these arguments to change Columbus from "Italian" to an obscure city's possessive, how long before Martin Luther becomes an Eiselebener and Johan Sebastian Bach becomes an Eisenacher? Because the German Empire didn't exist back then, so clearly "German" is just as bad as "Italian". Wikipedia doesn't need those battles. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"European" is so general a descriptor as to be unhelpful. As I said above, I personally would call him "Genoese" (in my own writing), but "Italian" is certainly serviceable here. Just for comparison's sake, the Encyclopedia Britannica titles its article on him as "Christopher Columbus | Italian explorer".

I would just say that a past consensus does not bind us at this point. A new discussion can be started at any time, and any present consensus would supersede past consensuses. Genoese is well sourced and seems more logical to me. The vague geographical designation "Italian" is analogous to calling Lionel Messi a "South-American footballer". Genoese is much more accurate and avoids anachronism. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's really interesting that you use the example of Martin Luther as an Eiselebener, because Eiseleben was not an independent republic or city-state when Martin Luther was born. The issue of his nationality is actually interesting, and for those interested, it actually could be more helpful for Wikipedia to have more information.

When he was born, Eiseleben was the territory of the Counts of Mansfeld within the Holy Roman Empire. This is referenced on the Wikipedia page, but the page could offer a deeper exploration of where he was situated in terms of what language he spoke or what kind of ethnic identity he had within that region that was and still is very diverse in regions that had their own languages and separate nations and political entities.

For instance, the bible he wrote played a major role in defining what later became the German national language (similar to the role of Dante for Italian), and he has said that the language he translated the bible into was language was that of the "chancery of Saxony." But the article doesn't allude to what language he spoke growing up, or what language and ethnic group his parents and ancestors were from, or anything to help us understand the differences in culture, language and ethnicity betweeen Mansfeld County and Saxony, let alone the rest of the region of central Europe at the time. This is information that I would be thankful for Wikipedia to cover more. European history can be confusing and complicated, and having a better resource would help.

Because Martin Luther was a key figure in what later became German identity, it confuses the matter to paper over what the complex languages and identities were before. I think the article on Ferdinand II does a good job by naming all of the places he was king or sovereign of without calling him Spanish at the outset, because he was a key figure in what later became Spain, and later in the article they refer to that people later called him "King of Spain" without introducing him as Spanish or glossing over the complicated political circumstances that led to that. SiciliaOliva (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, I see the concern, but I don't know how to improve upon the current description other than having a better note to keep this from coming up again in a year or so. The down side of using "Italian explorer from Genoa" is that it may introduce confusion to some readers. It is not inaccurate, however, and it is not an anachronism as demonstrated by the references from the 1500's. The down side of omitting "Italian" is that it derogates the description and does put it at odds with a great volume of sources including a number of those listed as reliable at WP:RSP. I'm not weighing in "precedent" as noted by Tarl, but, if I did, I think the Greeks are also a similar situation e.g. Plato is a "Greek philosopher born in Athens". A15730 (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Boynamedsue writes: The vague geographical designation "Italian" and Genoese… avoids anachronism These points have been addressed. Italian is ethnographic, not just geographical. (I will also point out that nobody bothers with “Genoese” today international news; they say “Italian”, yet for some reason, nobody thinks of that as “vague”.) As far as anachronism goes, there is none: Italy was well recognized as both a region and an ethnicity in Columbus’s time. While it’s true that an old consensus is not binding, reaching a new consensus would depend on those participating to keep track of and understand the arguments in play. Strebe (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have read those points and disagree with them. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain why you disagree so that we have something to go on? Strebe (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So far, despite the enormous volume of words expended, nothing new has been said yet in this new flare-up. It just goes round and round, year after year. Strebe (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My earlier comment about "European" was semi-serious. By the time 1492 rolled around, Columbus had been around the block so many times, nobody particularly cared where he had started. Citizenship back then was more a matter of how you appeared, how you behaved, and what your neighbors thought of you, rather than strict birth location or ethnic heritage. At the end of his life, he was a Spanish Don (aristocrat), albeit in bad odor for incompetence/malfeasance. That he'd been born in Genoa or originally spoke Ligurian was irrelevant. It's only now, centuries later, that we really care - and we care for reasons involved in many mutually exclusive private agendas. Those agendas are never going away, so the arguments on the subject will never go away. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, since you asked nicely this time rather than implying I can only be rejecting your arguments through ignorance, I will, on a single occasion, expand on my reasoning. I do not think that the fact a geographical label existed means it should be used over the more specific term employed by contemporaries which relates to Columbus's origin. I find your argument that Italian is an "ethnic" term in that period to be unconvincing, the concepts of ethnicity and nationhood existing in that period were not really comparable to those which exist today. But even if it was true, I disagree that an ethnic term is better here than one which relates to citizenship. I don't feel that an encyclopaedia should simplify facts unnecessarily, if a reader does not understand what Genoese means, they can click on the hyperlink. So, I've said my piece, am I allowed to disagree with you now? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to add another source to the discussion about whether Italian was an "ethnic" identity at the time of Columbus:

Tufi, S., & Blackwood, R. J. (2016). The linguistic landscape of the Mediterranean: French and Italian coastal cities. Springer.

This book has a section on the history and present of Liguria, Genoa, the Ligurian language, and the Genoese variation of the Ligurian language.

"Genoa (archaic Genua) was founded by the Ligures, who were Romanized after 205 BC (Voltaggio, 2010). It was a prosperous city until the fall of the Roman Empire, and was subsequently controlled by the Ostrogoths, the Byzantines and the Longobards until 774 AD. It acquired an important political role in the western Mediterranean under Carolingian rule in the fight against the Moors, and by the twelfth century it had accumulated enough wealth and power to emerge as an independent city-state, a maritime republic with one of the largest navies in the Mediterranean. Participation in the Crusades allowed Genoa to extend its influence and colonial power to the Orient. Genoa was the first city-state of Italy to become a regional state and the Genoese regarded themselves a nation, and therefore different from the other peoples of Italy, by the middle of the twelfth century. This fostered an early consolidation of its linguistic and cultural identity (Muljačić, 2008)." pg. 59

"...Genoese acquired a hegemonic role as a language of communication, as an identity marker, and in literary production. Its undisputed prestige transformed the ethnonym ‘Genoese’ into a cover term that has been applied to and used instead of the name of the region, Liguria, for centuries (Toso, 2002)." pg 59-60

"It was, according to Forner (1997, p. 246) ‘the language of political debate (through the despatch of officials of the Genoese Republic to the new provinces); the language of the nobility (through the granting of feudal properties to the Genoese aristocracy); and the language of commerce (through the establishment of Genoese trading posts)’. Before the establishment of scientific dialectology in the nineteenth century, Ligurian varieties had been set aside from other northern varieties within the context of a ripudio della settentrionalità (‘rejection of northern-ness’; Toso, 2010, p. 413). This tradition was instrumental for the consolidation of a perception of alterity with respect to the rest of northern Italy and as such it reinforced feelings of an alternative and unique identity."

The book explains how after the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Genoa was subsumed to the Piedmont/Savoy/Sardinia political empire that eventually annexed the rest of Italy that century, and that it was only then that they let in more of the standardizing Florintine Italian dialect through trade, in part as resistance to using the Piedmontese language for trade, which continued with industrialization but that Genoese Ligurian language was prevalent into the 20th Century (pg. 59-61). Interestingly, the book also describes how Facist Italy both took measures against the multiplicity of languages in Italy, and also used Columbus' Italianness as part of their propaganda and ideology (pg. 62).

The book goes into detail about how many households in Genoa still speak Genoese Ligurian and the prevalence of that written language on signs and in shops across the city, reinforcing a Genoese Ligurian identity that persists to this day.

I really recommend that folks seek out books like this. Also, if anyone has seen the docuseries Stanley Tucci: In Search of Italy, in the episode "Liguria," he talks with many Genoese Ligurians who refer to themselves as Ligurian, the cultural/ethnic character that makes them Ligurian and they drop words of Ligurian in their cooking terminology.

Having given this substantive source establishing a Genoese ethnic idenity, I can elide some of my earlier discussion of ethnicity to save space on the page other than this criteria of ethnicity that this information meets: The Oxford English Dictionary defines "ethnicity" as "belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." SiciliaOliva (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@SiciliaOliva, you created your account 15 days ago, and since then you have done nothing but post WP:WALLSOFTEXT on this talk page about one topic that happens to be a topic that's been litigated over and over and over again and is well-represented in the archives. (In fact it's been a point of controversy for decades if not centuries.)

• Don't you have anything better to do on Wikipedia?
• Why are you here? You've never made a single edit to mainspace.

Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I got interested in this topic recently and I have been doing research and reading books on the topic. As someone who has done university level seeking out of sources and reviewing literature, there tend to be waves of interest and curiosity, and I ride that wave. I have made minor edits to Wikipedia as far back as 14 years ago, with edits that still stand. This is a semi-protected article that requires a user account, rather than an IP address, and posting to the talk page. I had expected more discussion with people who were interested in the topic, rather than pushback on sharing too much information. But I get that Columbus is a controversial topic and I do see there are reasons why there is a bias toward calling Columbus "Italian."

I also looked through the archives of this talk page, and I actually see constant changes in the edit for many years, showing that this is a controversial topic that has never reached consensus. I see the archives invoked, but looking at them, it's clearly not a settled matter.

Also, I can see there is something about Wikipedia talk page culture that I am bothering, so I apologize that has been difficult. I would have guessed that people who weren't interested just wouldn't haunt the talk page. I am also noticing that some of the links that are giving imperatives about not writing to much are not actually Wikipedia guidelines and I find that interesting. Like the "Wall of Text" page, says: "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

I think that "neutral point of view" which is a guideline should hold more sway on this topic, and the fact that "Italian" is contentious and has contradicting sources, should show it's not a neutral term.

I can go elsewhere for a while again, but I do feel that those passages from that book are a valid contribution to the scholarship for those interested. SiciliaOliva (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

While I think Elizium23's comment is unnecessarily combative, I agree with their point about walls of text. I actually agree with you about the Genoese question, but even I didn't read that. Posting a screed of that length on a talkpage is self-indulgent and completely impractical. Nobody reads it. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just very surprised at the lack of interest and curiosity around historical matters here. I removed myself from the conversation for 10 days, there has been no movement on this thread for a week. I went a found a book with great information about Genoese identity, language and ethnicity. Isn't it reasonable that editors would want to read full books on historical topics, in order to get to better scholarship, let alone 3 paragraphs of excerpts? SiciliaOliva (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn’t about lack of interest and curiosity. It’s about lack of consensus among reliable sources about how to best present this material. Nobody participating in this discussion contests that Columbus was Genoan and had a more specific identity than “Italian”. The points you’ve made apply to Venetians, Florentians, Neopolitans, and many others to large degree. For me the case rests on what conveys the most meaningful information to the most people most efficiently. I doubt many people outside of Liguria, and especially outside of Italy, know what it means to be “Genoese”, but most of them have some sense, however vague, about what it means to be “Italian”. Given that it’s possible in the same phrase to also indicate that his citizenship was Genoan, I find myself baffled that the endless debates around this topic expend thousands of words debating a false dichotomy. Is this really worth a chunk of our lives? Strebe (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Self-indulgent is right—SiciliaOliva still refuses to listen to what multiple editors are telling her, and prefers to continue bludgeoning the page to no effect under the deluded conviction that others will read her ridiculous walls of text, apparently thinking she will eventually get her way if she keeps doing so. It's very tiresome. She obviously doesn't care what other editors think, so her crusade is simply an exercise in futility. Carlstak (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is my first talk page experience, so I am learning more about the guidelines, I just read this one today, and I am asking for this to be respected:

"Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating."

That's here on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout

That talk page guidelines page says "This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline," I am reading it now and I think the one I am highlighting will help evolve the information. SiciliaOliva (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is another reliable source, a Washington Post article, by Dr. Kris Lane, a history professor at Tulane University: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-christopher-columbus/2015/10/08/3e80f358-6d23-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html

In this article, Professor Lane succinctly states:

1. That "Columbus was Italian" is a myth.

2. "when Columbus lived, there was no such thing as an Italian"

3."To his deathbed, he proudly claimed Genoa as home."

4. "In Columbus’s lifetime, Genoa was a fiercely independent republic with its own language, currency and overseas colonies."

5. "Most historians believe that Columbus was Genoese, but they hesitate to call him “Italian”

The Washington Post has the highest rating as a reliable source for Wikipedia, and this is a doctorate level historian discussing the academic consensus in his field. This speaks directly to the historical facts and whether it is appropriate to call him "Italian."

Add this to the record of supporting sources. SiciliaOliva (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

To me there is sufficient doubt over the balance of sources that we should definitely not be saying Columbus is Italian in wikivoice. If we have a historian writing in the Washington Post "he was not Italian" we really need to look at this, despite the fact the person proposing it has been quite annoying. Perhaps the best way would be to leave out the nationality in the introduction and merely state "born in the Republic of Genoa." Leaving the question of his ethnicity/nationality to another section? Boynamedsue (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A reason this discussion keeps popping up is because somebody comes along with the thought that so-and-so can't be called "Italian" because Italy didn't exist. This is Ian's (sp) point as well as the point in the Washington Post opinion article linked above. Thus, begins the cycle again.

I believe that the purpose of wikipedia is to summarize reliable sources as best as can be done. There are an extremely large number of sources that refer to Columbus as an Italian explorer. In fact, the citation used in the note to claim that most think he was born in Genoa also explicitly labels him an "Italian Explorer". Thus, it is captured in the article by calling him Italian. The article also captures that he was most likely born in the Republic of Genoa and other such information as well.

A reason not to include "Italian" would be if it is clearly factually incorrect, and I was open to this possibility. As I found out, this is not the case. In addition to the three sources cited above, there are a number of others demonstrating that this epithet was used for Columbus around the time he was alive. Additionally, it appears that Columbus himself may have used it to refer to people from the Italian states. (see Kerr, General History of Voyages and Travels vol III, History of the Discovery of America, by Christopher Columbus; written by his son Don Ferdinand Columbus, p. 219) Hence, I think that WP:preserve applies.

I do think the wording of the note could be improved so that this doesn't continually come up from editors' who see it and think that nobody thought of the fact that Italy wasn't a country at the time and, therefore, there is no way "Italian" could apply. A15730 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

With respect A15730, the only reason we need to avoid stating something in wiki voice is that serious disagreement exists on the matter among mainstream scholars. I think enough has been done to show that serious disagreement exists. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that he is going to be listed as anything, I really don't see how you draw that conclusion. With all of the effort SiciliaOliva has clearly put into this, they have only cited one source that says Columbus is not Italian. That source is by a historian but is an opinion piece in which point #1 above depends on redefining "Italian" while #2 and #3 are clearly incorrect. I think you know that more reliable sources can be found that state he was Portuguese or Spanish rather than Genoese. Having nothing listed is certain to just start cycles of people re-adding some designation.

That's just my opinion of course. I accept that Carlstak, Strebe, Tarl N., and yourself (i.e. years of editing and thousands of edits) probably have a far better grip on how articles should be written vis-a-vis wiki policies and guidance than I do. Hopefully, you "guys" can reach some consensus. (My apologies that I'm not sure how to do the call-out to notify those mentioned that I have done so.) A15730 (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, about pinging them, I would imagine they have this page on their watchlists anyway. In any case, at this moment there is no consensus for the change. --Boynamedsue (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The Taviani, Paolo Emilio (1990) reference that I gave that includes the full text of the 1479 Genoese document establishing Columbus' age and nationality as a citizen of Genoa, also includes numberous other primary documents establishing Columbus in Genoa and his family, and gives extensive discussion to alternative theories of Columbus not being from Genoa, and shows why certain sources have more weight than others. I recommend that anyone interested seek out Taviani and read it.

Especially given that most people here do not contest Columbus was from Genoa, I think a case needs to be made that the proponderence of evidence favors that Italian was a more meaningful distinction than Genoese. The evidence that I have reviewed so far, in heavily weighted in favor that Genoese was a more meaninful distinction, including the expectation readers would have that the label given corresponds to what country someone is from. SiciliaOliva (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I want to express my appreciation to you as someone who has been advancing this discussion on the basis of seeking out sources and engaging in inquiry.

I found the book you just cited, and I have been reading it: Kerr, General History of Voyages and Travels vol III, History of the Discovery of America, by Christopher Columbus; written by his son Don Ferdinand Columbus

I have a digital copy that doesn't have the same page numbers. Can you include the full quote you are referring to?

Reading over Ferdinand Columbus' narrative, I couldn't find either Ferdinand referring to his father as "Italian" or him quoting his fathers letters in which he called himself "Italian." I searched all of Ferdinand's narrative for the words "Italian" and "Italy" and it didn't come up.

What I did find is that Ferdinand refers to his father as Genoese, and having Genoese "countrymen," which indicates nationality and what "country" (i.e. the literal state of the Republic of Genoa) he came from, which I would say is the standard for reader expectations of nationality labels.

This is a full quote from Section II of Ferdinand's narrative, the context being that Columbus' ship got into a fire fight with a Venetian ship off the coast of Portugal, and his son says Columbus had to abandon ship and swim to shore: "“Being not far from Lisbon, where he knew that many Genoese, his countrymen, then dwelt, he made all haste to that city; where making himself known, he was courteously received and entertained by the Genoese.”

There is also a part in Section III of the Ferdinand narrative where he quotes from an inscription on a map that Bartholomew Columbus gave to the English when seeking their potential sponsorship for the prospective trans-Atlanic voyages, where Bartolomew Columbus, Christopher Columbus' brother, identifies himself as: “Janua cui patria est nomen, cui Bartholomaeus Columbus de Terra-rubra,” which the book translates as "“Bartholomew Columbus of the red earth, a Genoese.”

Throughout the narrative Ferdinand referrences and identifies numerous people as Genoese or Venetian (including Marco Polo), and there is clearly a distinction that these are two different countries who are rivals on the seas. There is also a section where Columbus' is described as corresponding with a "Florentine" who resides in Lisbon.

Overall, I would say the Ferdinand narrative actually supports that for people in that era, Genoese, Venetian and Florentine were all more meaningful distinctions that directly indicated nationality, language, ethnicity and identity, than "Italian". There is no sense that people from those republics were "countrymen" with each other, and quite the opposite. It's also notable that the English translation in the book is from 1704 in England, and the authors had English words for Genoese, Venetian and Florentine, and didn't see fit to translate anything as "Italian" (The Republic of Genoa still existed at that time).

Overall, I would say the Ferdinand narrative is fitting as a supporting source for Genoese, because the labels and terminology used. but I would not use it as a primary source without corroboration of a lot of the facts. For instance, Ferdinand denies cruelty of Columbus' to the indigenous people of the New World, contradicted by most accounts. There is other myth making and religious invocations in there that are about glorifiying Columbus, including denying that Columbus came from a family involved in wool working (contradicting more substantiated accounts), and claiming the family name had been Colombi and they were related to certain admirals and nobility (which I haven't seen confirmed elsewhere), and seems about inflating his standing within the nobility of Castille, while he also admits he never got a story about his family origins from his father.

Again, apologies for the amount of information, but this is from finding your source book and reading it, so it should be helpful to the question of whether your source supports what it is said to support. SiciliaOliva (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, since the Pliny the Elder referrence has been removed, the only citation in the footnote to "Italian" in the current Wikipedia article is to an Encyclopedia Brittanica article that only refers to him as an "Italian Explorer" under the title of the article, but not in the body of the article.... and you yourself said about encyclopedia entries that they are "tertiary sources and are not favored for wikipedia," after I found an encyclopedia entry that referred to him as a "Genoese explorer" (Kinsbruner, J., & Langer, E. D. (2008)).

All of the other sources that you point to are not currently cited relative to the label of "Italian" and I am pointing to contemporary primary documentation and ethnography and history from within Genoa that I feel outweigh the quality of sources that you have referenced.

I welcome this back and forth because it has led me to read more, find more sources, and become more informed on the topic. I invite those who want to become more informed to read these same sources and we can collaborate. SiciliaOliva (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Dr. Kris Lane’s opinion that “most” historians hesitate to call Columbus “Italian”: I’ve gone over Dr. Lane’s research as far as I have access to it. None of the reported research consists of a survey of historians on any topic, let alone on the ethnicity of Columbus. While Lane is surely better equipped to talk about the norms in the field than someone not in the field, these sorts of anecdotal observations tend to reflect the preferences of the expert. Second, most of the arguments against Columbus being Italian apply to other historical regions and ethnicities. An obvious example is Germany, which did not exist until 1871. Its predecessor, the German Confederation, consisted of no fewer than 39 independent states, some of them involved in rivalries as intense as those between Genoa and Venice, notably Austria versus Prussia. Before that, the Holy Roman Empire spanned nearly a millennium and fluctuated greatly in its boundaries (which for centuries included most of northern Italy!). However, while a titular empire with an emperor, the same sort of regional rivalries and autonomies prevailed. And yet, scientists and artists before 1871 who hailed from the region now known as Germany are practically universally and without controversy referred to as “German”. To wit, Felix Mendelssohn is universally called a “German” composer, yet he was born in independent Hamburg and lived most of his life in the Brandenburg province of independent Prussia. Richard Wagner was a “German” composer, but was subject to the sovereign state of Saxony. Contrast those two with Johann Strauss I, a contemporary, who is called an “Austrian” composer, despite that Prussia, Saxony, and Austria were peers. Why? Because modern Austria is an independent nation, whereas modern Prussia and Saxony are not. Meanwhile, the linguistic differences between Prussia and Saxony were roughly as great as between Liguria and, for example, Venice. There’s just very little special about Genoa vs the rest of Italy as compared to other pre-modern city-state systems. Meanwhile, using these ago-old regional and ethnic terms as identity and linguistic markers is nowhere else controversial as far as I can tell. These terms helps the modern reader quickly assimilate knowledge. Much ado about nothing. Strebe (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well said, Strebe. This is the common sense answer to all the "ado". Let's be done with this. Carlstak (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s simply anachronistic to refer to someone born in the 15th century as “Italian.” While the Italian peninsula existed, the state of Italy did not and therefore “Italian” is not an available nationality to describe people of the 15th century. إيان (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Well it's good that you know the Italian peninsula existed in the 15th Century. What you don't know is how nation-states came to be, and why applying any modern concept of "nationality" to the 15th Century is flawed and pseudo-historical. The whole idea of linking an ethnicity to a national identity was an emerging concept in the 15th Century but not one that was commonly applied.

Italian regional identity had existed since Roman Empire times, when for most of the period Roman citizenship was restricted to those inhabitants of the Italian peninsula. That means "Italian" as a regional, ethnic and even political identity is the oldest in Western Europe, predating "French" or "English" by many centuries. Western Europeans were aware of this.

This quibble over the different dialects of the Italian language is tantamount to differences between American and British English -most of these languages were mutually intelligible and were merely regional identifiers within Italy. An exception would be the Piedmontese dialect, which really isn't a dialect of Italian (and doesn't even apply to this subject anyway).

And yes, the same case could be made for the German states pre-1971. German ethnicity (language/culture) existed long before Germany did, and was used more frequently (by non-Germans) than distinctions like 'Hessian' or 'Bavarian'. What is crucial to consider about Columbus is the fact that he was not sailing for Genoa, but for Spain. And Spain (and Portugal) was already home to communities and networks of Italian merchants and bankers, mostly Genoese, Florentines and Venetians in Seville (and Lisbon), who provided the financial capital and maritime expertise during the Age of Discovery. And the most commonly used designator for these communities, whose members came from several states across Northern Italy, was "Italian".

On the question of what came first, ethnicity or nationality, the answer is ethnicity. The process of organizing ethnicities, or absorbing ethnicities, into common polities and linking that to 'nationality' had only just begun in the 15th C. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I just had to chip in here because this is probably the most ill-informed post on Italian linguistics I have ever seen. I don't know what it is about linguistics that means people feel entitled to just say things they feel without any basis in reality, but it happens a lot. To state that Italian dialects are mutually intelligible is false. Italian "dialects" are in fact a large number of independent languages, which are considered to be "dialects" in Italy for political reasons. The difference between the two most divergent variants of the English language, let's say Cork English and African American Vernacular English, is smaller than the difference between Milanese and Bergamasque, two dialects of the Lombard Language. There is a very low degree of mutually intelligibility between the different languages, Genoese and Milanese have no more mutual intelligibility than Catalan and Spanish, although this is less visible today as all dialect speakers speak Italian as well. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)