Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Italian symbol

For the Legacy section, there should be a mention that in the time of great immigration from Italy to the USA, Columbus was used a symbol by Italian-Americans, who could claim that people of Italian origin belonged in America, in spite of the nativist attitude of Anglo-Americans. Hence the erection of Columbus statues in places of Italian immigration. --Error (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I did it myself. --Error (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Change to Genovese and not Italian explorer, as Italy didn't exist as a country until 400 years after Christopher Columbus' birth.

Christopher Columbus[a] (/kəˈlʌmbəs/;[3] Ligurian: Cristoffa Corombo; Italian: Cristoforo Colombo; Spanish: Cristóbal Colón; before 31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was a Genovese explorer and navigator who completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean, opening the way for European exploration and colonization of the Americas.[4] His expeditions, sponsored by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, were the first European contact with the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. Luna1967 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This idea has been beaten to death; please read earlier discussions of the issue. ɱ (talk) 02:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What should a Lede say about a famous person?

There are several things someone reading an article about a famous person would expect to find in the first paragraph or so of the article:

• Their name
• Their timeframe (usually birth/death)
• Their gender (if not already obvious)
• Their nationality
• Their profession(s), or more generally, what they did with their lives
• The reason they are famous.

We could revise the lede to say "Columbus was a nasty white man who is the source of most of the evil in the Americas", or something like that, but that does not do our readers any service.

It's the last three items are the ones that people are trying to revise. A year ago, "discoverer" was removed, in spite of the fact that several reference not only use the term, but use it in their titles. We decided not to follow our own references in the name of expedience. So what was Columbus? Starting with his nationality:

• It's pretty clear he was born in Genoan lands, many claims otherwise notwithstanding.
• Italians have long claimed him as one of their own.
• The concept of "Italian" goes back to the Roman Republic (using the term "Italia"), referring to nationalities on the Italian peninsula. The Social war, broadly speaking, involved the power struggle between Italians and Romans. So "Italian" is not a new term dating back only to Garibaldi, as some periodically claim.
• The city of Genoa was allied with Roma going all the way back to the Punic wars.

So, I regard "Italian" as not particularly controversial. Replacing Italian with something else is usually rooted in other agendas.

His profession, or what he did with his life:

• In his early life, he was a seaman. He spent most of his life at sea, in a variety of roles, from trader to navigator to ship master.
• He became an explorer (and became famous for it). As an explorer, he served in the role of a commodore (a ship master who had other ships responding to him), but that was a situational role related to having obtained the funding for the expeditions.
• He became Admiral of the Ocean Sea, a title indicating legal jurisdiction over the ocean beyond the Azores.
• He became a colonist, in the sense that he founded colonies in the Americas.
• He became a governor (and became infamous for it), rather dramatically unsuccessful.

Anything I've missed? What are the reasons these should be excluded? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I largely agree with that. As per my proposal, I think the first paragraph should express only their name, (general) time period, and “the reason they are famous”. In the case of Columbus, there’s ample material for the paragraph. The biographical details don’t need to be presented in a way that promotes arguments. Instead of “Italian” vs “Genoan”, it suffices to say that “Most biographers believe he was native to the Republic of Genoa, now part of Italy”. That’s inarguable. Most of this stuff can be made inarguable. I share your frustration with the sophistry around the term “discovery”; the arguments against the term don’t hold up to any sort of rigorous thinking and are therefore based on a facile misunderstanding of what the word even means. On the other hand, properly written, we don’t need to directly state a list of nouns (“discoverer”, “mariner”, &c) to describe him. I’d use the second paragraph of the lede for the biographical and professional details; those are not what he’s famous for or why this article exists, but they are important to understanding him and so need to be summarized in the lede. Strebe (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

dis·cov·er·er, noun: the first person to find or explore a place; the first person to find or observe a substance or scientific phenomenon. (ref) You can maybe instead argue for "European discovery", which is also not fully accurate, but whatever. ɱ (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

See multiple discovery and the FA Joseph Priestley. "He has historically been credited with the discovery of oxygen...although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have strong claims...Scheele having discovered it in 1772, two years before Priestley". If you ever were to make a claim about historical discoverer credit, it needs to include that historians, especially recent ones, recognize earlier events by other people. ɱ (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to counter with Webster's Third New International Dictionary (in three volumes), 1981, Merriam-Webster. dis·cover: To make known (something secret, hidden, unknown, or previously unnoticed). I think we can agree that the Americas were unnoticed by the rest of the world at that time. Certainly it was uncontroversial for nearly five centuries that he conducted voyages of discovery. Nowadays we struggle to find words to blame him as the root cause of all atrocities in the Americas, while somehow not mentioning that he explored the route and discovered something. C'est la vie. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A 1981 dictionary? And it's not even the same word. Your definition can have the context of discovering a new way of doing something, etc. Land discovery is only credited to the first person to find it. Or even to the first settlers. Your idea even that the Miriam Webster definition supports this is ludicrous. How did Columbus make known to the globe an area that had already been settled by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people? An incredibly daft Eurocentric notion. ɱ (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A 1981 dictionary? Well, yeah. It happens to be the only >3000 page dictionary I have. Are you saying that if something was published 39 years ago, it's meaningless? I suppose so, since you seem to hold that five centuries of references on Columbus are meaningless. I picked the word "discover" since the essence of our disagreement is whether Columbus carried out a discovery. Either way, that's irrelevant to the context of this paragraph, where I had already conceded the removal of the term. The question is whether we remove everything else from the lede and leave some variant of "he was a nasty caucasian to whom we can trace all atrocities in the Americas". I believe that would be a disservice to our readers. A protracted version of WP:RECENTISM. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A 1981 dictionary? Is this trolling? Seriously? What do you fantasize has changed in basic word meanings since 1981? The dictionary could be from 1881, yet still authoritative. “Discovery” by your meaning is meaningless. Discovery always has a perspective. We have no idea who first knew about most things; we only know whom we have discovered has first made known most things. How many discoveries, by your definition, go unrecorded or are lost from “the record”? We don’t know, and we don’t know if any particular thing has “been discovered” before anything we generally have record of. We don’t know how many humans accidentally rafted in one direction or the other all the way across the Atlantic. We don’t know how many aliens discovered the black hole at the center of the Milky Way a billion years before us—or even who discovered us before we did. We don’t even know that the inhabitants of America when Columbus arrived were descendants of the actual first “humans” who first set foot on the continent. And I write “humans” in quote marks because, for all we know, individuals of Homo erectus or Homo denisova were the first. None of those examples mean anything by any useful definition of the word “discovery”. At the same time, those examples demonstrate how useless your absolutist notion of the word’s definition is. Hence, “discoverer” doesn’t mean “the first human to find out something”. That’s epistemologically nonsensical and that’s never been its meaning in scholarly writing. It means the first human credited with finding out something in a way that the rest of humanity could (eventually) know about it. Strebe (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course I knew you two would attack the "1981" portion. I hope you've seen how things have changed in that amount of time, especially with new dictionary entries added and adapted every year or more. Language is living and adapting by the way; there is no one authority for the English language, and definitions change based on how people adapt their use of words. You have countless internet dictionaries at your disposal, use them. Wiktionary offers better and more diverse definitions than most any I've found, for these words and most others. Strebe, you're grasping at straws, and really showing your Eurocentric viewpoint ("rest of humanity"). How do you not accept an Oxford Dictionary definition - isn't that from the UK? Historians adapt narratives with new research - just like Priestley is no longer solely credited with the discovery of oxygen, historians no longer credit Columbus with discovery of a land long-inhabited by countless masses of people. ɱ (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There it is, all the sophistry I talked about, plus a touching belief in the superiority of lazy access to Internet crowd-sourcing as the pinnacle of scholarship. Your own recommended Wiktionary refutes you:

discoverer (plural discoverers) n.: One who discovers: a person who has discovered something. Quotations ▲

1930, Norman Lindsay, Redheap, Sydney: Ure Smith, published 1965, page 30:

But this was subterfuge to defeat the curiosity of a chance discoverer.

The person enacting the subterfuge already knows what “he” himself is doing, so the subterfuge is to prevent someone else from finding out. So tell me: how could someone else “discover” what he’s doing if he himself already knows? The answer is obvious: “discovery” always comes with a perspective. This is exactly analogous to the sophomoric question of how Columbus could “discover” America if there were already people here.

That’s the only definition from Wiktionary. Meanwhile any competent, comprehensive dictionary by real scholars and editors paid to do a good job, instead of random Internet amateurs with a lot of free time, gives more nuances of the actual connotations. Strebe (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I can respond more when home, but haha I wasn't claiming Wiktionary was better specifically for this definition. The Oxford definition should be added as well! Regardless of all the bickering about theoreticals, the issue has been discussed countless times, no? Are you set on rehashing every controversial point again? What hill will you not die on? If you're arguing he should be called discoverer, where is your evidence based on the majority of sources on the man? ɱ (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Would someone mind reverting Mssddmit (talk · contribs)? They keep edit warring their ideas in, contrary to our discussion here. It's clear Columbus was never bestowed the rank of admiral, so their wording is misleading/inaccurate. I took it to their talk page with no response with rash response and a trash source now given, and they've been at least dangerously close to 3RR now. ɱ (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course Columbus was an admiral: He was the Admiral of the Ocean Sea, a position created for for him by the Crowns. The citation is definitely garbage, though. Strebe (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, we've more-or-less agreed this point isn't significant enough for the first sentence, right? Or at least it makes no sense to use it while not even calling him an explorer, a role Columbus is much better-known for. ɱ (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with @Strebe: on Columbus being an admiral. He wasn't. That links to a military title, generally commander of a fleet or navy, which was not the role Columbus held. It was a royal appointment, more in line with "sheriff". Tarl N. (discuss) 18:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

“Admiral” is not specifically military. Definition #1 from New Grolier Webster International Dictionary (2 volumes): Commander of a fleet [which Columbus was]. Definition #2: Navy title meaning blah blah. Definition #1 is unnecessary unless the term is not specifically military. “The Admiral’s Map” is called that because of the belief that the source was pretty much directly from Columbus. (It wasn’t.) Columbus’s son titled his biography of his father The life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand. There were different supreme titles bestowed by different countries at different times in medieval and early modern times, such as “High Admiral”, “Admiral of [Country name]”, “Imperial Admiral”. It’s true that the inherited title does not confer naval rank on the descendants, but the original person given the title seems to have been, invariably from examples I can find, unambiguously an admiral in office. Hence, Columbus wasn’t granted the title of Admiral of the Ocean Seas so that he wouldn’t be an “admiral”. As far as I can tell, whether or not Columbus was an admiral isn’t controversial anywhere but here. Anyway, not inclined to argue this further; there’s no need to call Columbus an “admiral”, particularly if it confuses people. Strebe (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what Christopher Columbus has to do with men's issues?

TSIA MightyArms (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No…? Strebe (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

Please remove this:

near extermination of the indigenous Taino population

and add this

near extermination of Hispañola's indigenous Taino population

The article mentions his activities in a number of places, so it can wrongly be inferred that this is talking about all the Taino, but the "Criticism and defense in modern scholarship" section shows that it's referring to Hispañola in particular. 71.206.133.192 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sounds reasonable, change made. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Douglas Peck

Given the back-and-forth on this recently, the real question is whether we should be including Peck as a reference in this article. He was deliberately an iconoclast, he published things specifically to shake everyone up - if it didn't upset anyone, it wasn't interesting to him. That's always fun, but it doesn't strike me as a reasonable source for an encyclopedia. A quote from his obituary, "I can show where the Maya mastered celestial navigation a thousand years before the Europeans and spread their influence into Florida and beyond,” said Peck, who was building a case for alternative history right up until his death.

Is this the kind of dispassionate source we want for encyclopedia contents? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Peck’s thesis on Mayan celestial navigation is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, as are his other scholarly works. He’s not claiming the Mayans sailed all over the world, or anything else ridiculous or implausible. Just that they exerted influence as far as Florida and that they had developed some techniques in celestial navigation that enabled such expeditions. It was the obituary that was sensationalist, not Peck’s work. I wouldn’t call him an iconoclast. Strebe (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Loewen

I believe that James Loewen performed a valuable service in writing his book: mythbusting, revealing multiple perspectives when textbooks present over-simplified and sometimes skewed ideas to students, BUT Loewen is not an expert in this first-contact period. His degrees are in sociology and his historical expertise is mostly the U.S. Reconstruction period. While the information coming from Loewen might be accurate we should instead rely on experts on Columbus and his voyages (like perhaps the sources that Loewen cites) rather than Loewen's book.
I have removed the statement about Loewen's view that Columbus's portraits have little historical value. Are there experts that also have that perspective? If so, it can be re-added without attributing it to him.--MattMauler (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree that his book is important but not the most scholarly source to use here. I'm all for replacing those citations. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Integrating Columbus' biography into a single narrative

Presently, the "Voyages" and "Forced labour, brutality, and disease transmission" sections seem to present two disjointed and different narratives of Columbus' life and career, and it may be difficult for readers to tell where he was and what he did when. Somebody with the necessary expertise should clarify how these fit together, and perhaps integrate parts of the "Criticism and defense" section into the rest of the article as well. It's as if the goal of the article is to explain first the conventional, public-school narrative and then deconstruct it further down, instead of presenting a coherent chronicle of his life with all the complexities that historians continue to argue over, which strikes me as something unfortunately close to a series of mini-POVFORKs stuck together on a single page. Hopefully, this can be improved in spite of the minefield presented by the topic. Reschultzed|||Talk|||Contributions 03:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I also generally prefer to see an article laid out chronologically. Voyages of Christopher Columbus handles his colonial exploits somewhat better in this regard. However, I think it's helpful to keep much of the modern commentary separate, especially when the claims don't cite specifics. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

Change "was an Italian explorer and navigator" to "Was an explorer and navigator" or to "was a Genoese explorer and navigator"

Removing Italian is important for historical accuracy since at the time there was no such thing as a country called Italy neither the term Italian had a real meaning untill much later. He was most probably Genoese as it is later written correctly in the article. I don't want to get into the argument of his controversial origins or birthplace, but the affirmation that he was an Italian explorer leads many Americans to believe Italy discovered the New World and this is very wrong. Colombus made his exploration trips under the flag and patronage of the Hispanic Monarchy and he was not an Italian in the current sense of the word, as most would understand it today. Vegagb (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done (just removed). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

The Canadian province of British Columbia should be listed along with the American place names. 65.110.213.182 (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The etymology of BC seems to be more complicated than that (British Columbia#Etymology). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 22:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Presumably old style dates

If, on Wikipedia, an article's material is all before 1582, it's understood that the dates are Julian (old style), right? Columbus Day has been observed on Oct. 12, but that is new style. Carlm0404 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Morison 1991 ref?

There are a few references to "Morison 1991" in the article, but the only Morison mentioned in the references is Samuel Eliot Morison from 1942. --Bangalamania (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

1991 is the edition year. Thanks UpdateNerd (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Category prod

Can someone remove the prod notice at Category:Places named for Christopher Columbus per its talk page discussion? Thanks. Apparently I can't do it as the categories creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the talk page discussion has achieved consensus. RevelationDirect wants it gone, and you were the only opposing voice. Asking for someone else to delete the prod would be incorrect at this point. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

Columbus left Castile in August 1492 with three ships, and made landfall in the Americas on 12 October (ending the period of human habitation in the Americas now referred to as the pre-Columbian era). His landing place was an island in the Bahamas, known by its native inhabitants as the Taino. Columbus subsequently visited the islands now known as Cuba and Hispaniola, establishing a colony in what is now Haiti. This was the first European settlement in the Americas since the Norse colonies begun some 500 years earlier.He was welcomed by the inhabitants But in his travels he inslaved and terrorized the native people also spreading new diseases from europe. Columbus returned to Castile in early 1493, bringing a number of captured natives with him. Word of his voyages soon spread throughout Europe.After his first visit he was asked not to return but did still did and was harsh to the people Ich liebe dich auch (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done. All proposed content is already in the article. Also, proposal does not follow requirements for an edit request; vis., “Replace X with Y”. Strebe (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Nationality

Italy didn't exist until hundreds of years after Columbus died, so it's anachronistic to describe him as Italian. He was from Genoa so he was Genovese. (There's a link to Republic of Genoa for readers who don't know what that means.) Richard75 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed in detail. Italy as a nation-state didn't exist; Italians did, however. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the designation between Italian identity in modern cultural terms needs to be differentiated from Italian nationality because you can have an article about an Italian national who is of 100% African origin but if you tried to tie the cultural ties between that person and Columbus you'd get nowhere really quick. You said that it's been discussed so that sounds more like an arbitrary decision was made by committee and not by rational conclusion.--47.154.83.239 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe familiarize yourself with what has been discussed and then form an opinion. Strebe (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Spherical earth

When the article mentions ... " Christian writers whose works clearly reflect the conviction that the Earth is spherical include Saint Bede the Venerable in his Reckoning of Time, written around AD 723. " ... I think I can suggest another addition, I was reading the text of Gregory of Nyssa - a famous Christian theologian that took part in an Ecumenical Council during the Imperial time; where he discusses natural observations and mentions the spherical form of earth quite often and implies its common sense among the educated. The book I was reading is "On the Soul and the Resurrection: St Gregory of Nyssa" particularly the translation of Anna M. Silvas; I have no idea how semi-locked articles work, but if someone can edit it, I consider this to be a useful addition. Some reasons: it covers the Eastern part of Christendom as well not just the Latin parts; the idea is about mentioning Christian writers and there is just one example. Orangecolajuice (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That's interesting too about Gregory of Nyssa. I don't think we need to mention a clear line of influence stemming all the way back to Ptolemy. There's every indication that knowledge of the spherical Earth was widespread amongst the learned. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It has been disputed here before that Early Medieval scholars generally agreed that the earth was spherical. Nobody seems to dispute that High Medieval and beyond had reached a consensus among Christian scholars. Hence, Orangecolajuice's observation is important, but the correct way to incorporate it into the article is to have the same thing stated by a reputable source; otherwise it’s WP:OR. Strebe (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have started to download papers and books to obtain such a citation, unfortunately the few I have started with do not mention Gregory particularly, but it was not entirely fruitless. The relevant quotation ″Despite their sometimes literal reading of the Bible, the Cappadocean fathers Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa belonged to the school of Alexandria. Their interpretation of Genesis, as we have seen, incorporated a system of the world that came from Greek and Hellenistic culture: a geocentric universe in the form of a sphere and a spherical earth.″ Nicolaidis, Efthymios [in French] (2011). Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: From the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization. JHU Press. p. 24. ISBN 9781421404264. In turn this sentence ends with this citation: ″See E. Amand de Mendieta, “Les neuf Homelies de Basile de Cesaree sur l’Hexaemeron,” Byzantion 48 (1978): 345.″; I will try searching for more sources later today, but it seems that there exist Wikipedia articles using the author's books. Orangecolajuice (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of tyranny

The Accusations of tyranny section refers to the report Francisco de Bobadilla, who sent to investigate the reports of slavery and rebellion. It then cites the History Channel website as a source https://www.history.com/news/columbus-day-controversy. This is really unacceptable. Leaving aside the fact that Bobadilla was a vicious political opponent of Columbus, the History Channel is not reliable source. Bartolomé de las Casas who is accepted as the first real whistle blower on the plight of the indigenious expressed postive writings towards Columbus, although las Casas would not have experienced Columbus rule first hand. I am going to have to add a citation to Bordilla's actual report and provide context. Does anyone have a translation? I found a Spanish version but yet English https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wptvz I think there has to be some context as to whether what Columbus was accused of doing was typical in Europe and why was demoted. Aerchasúr (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

Slave trader

Columbus was actually a murderer and slave trader. His father was also one. When he arrived at the “New World” (Columbus was actually the second person from Europe to see the “New World” Leif Erickson came hundreds of years before him) he took out his gun and shot every native that wouldn’t come with him. The natives that came with him were sold as slaves.

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/columbus-mass-killer-slave-trade https://www.history.com/news/columbus-day-controversy https://www.vox.com/2014/10/13/6957875/christopher-columbus-murderer-tyrant-scoundrel https://secure.understandingprejudice.org/nativeiq/columbus.htm https://muse.jhu.edu/article/235622 https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/orlandosentinel.com/

And one article to show he was not the first European to visit the “New World”.

http://www.mnc.net/norway/LeifErikson.htm https://www.history.com/topics/exploration/leif-eriksson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:1F94:1501:709E:5606:9DFF:1BBF (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Other languages such as Japanese, mention that he was a “ a navigator and slave trader”. With these citations, the English version should add to the first sentence too. Ichikawaonthames (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ichikawaonthames:,Is there any information on whether Settlers and Columbus were involved chattel slavery or indentured servitude? The Irish Central, history.com and Vox are not acceptable sources Aerchasúr (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Columbus Hate

I'm trying to understand where all this hate of Columbus is coming from. Regardless of whoever you think reached the continent first -- I think people may be conflating Columbus with Conquistadors. Columbus made three trips to the Americas, resupplied, and then went back to Spain. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion. But while I'm here, I'll point out that Columbus was instrumental in bringing deadly contagious disease, enslavement & dismemberment to the indigenous Americans. His motivation appears to have been to maintain his position with the Spanish crown. Since he couldn't find sufficient quantities of gold to benefit the monarchs, he allowed slavery. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: Columbus cannot be held morally responsible for the spread of diseases that were not known to science. Nor did he bring slavery or dismemberment to the New World, as both were long there. He is believed to use chattel slavery or indentured servitude but I haven’t found historians clarifying which it was. Aerchasúr (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

In the "Location of remains section", please add citation by replacing 'cn' tag in first par:

Columbus's remains were first buried at a convent in Valladolid, then moved to the monastery of La Cartuja in Seville (southern Spain) by the will of his son Diego. They may have been exhumed in 1513 and interred at the Cathedral of Seville. In about 1536, the remains of both Columbus and his son Diego were moved to a cathedral in Colonial Santo Domingo, in the present-day Dominican Republic.

with source as below:

Columbus's remains were first buried at a convent in Valladolid, then moved to the monastery of La Cartuja in Seville (southern Spain) by the will of his son Diego. They may have been exhumed in 1513 and interred at the Cathedral of Seville. In about 1536, the remains of both Columbus and his son Diego were moved to a cathedral in Colonial Santo Domingo, in the present-day Dominican Republic. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) 49.177.64.138 (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done J850NK (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Why did Columbus think the Earth was smaller than it really is?

Under Geographical Considerations the second paragraph states, "In the 1st century BC, Posidonius confirmed Eratosthenes's results by comparing stellar observations at two separate locations. These measurements were widely known among scholars, but Ptolemy's use of the smaller, old-fashioned units of distance led Columbus to underestimate the size of the Earth by about a third." But the citation used claims Posidonius disagreed with Eratosthenes's estimate that the meridional circumference was 250,000 stades and instead settled on 180,000 stades.

The third paragraph says, "...Columbus learned of Alfraganus's estimate that a degree of latitude spanned 56​2⁄3 Arabic miles, but he did not realize that this was expressed in the Arabic mile rather than the shorter Roman mile with which he was familiar. Columbus therefore estimated the size of the Earth to be about 75% of Eratosthenes's calculation..." which seems to contradict the previous paragraph.

Did Columbus underestimate the size of the Earth because of the different standards regarding the size of a stade? Or because of the confusion between Arabic miles and Roman miles? And did Posidonius disagree with Eratosthenes's estimate of Earth's circumference, or did he confirm it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by An3223 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@An3223: Half a millennium later, exactly why he made his mistakes is probably lost forever. What's clear is that he had a range of sizes available from previous works dating back nearly two millennia, with considerable uncertainties and much room for misinterpretation. His choice of which authorities to believe and how to interpret them (including misconstruing units) lead to a serious underestimate.

As to the specific disagreement in paragraph 2, the cited reference confuses multiple issues. Posidonius fragment 202, specifies a circumference of 240,000 stades, assuming he knew the distance between Rhodes and Alexandria at 5000 stades. This is in broad agreement with Eratosthenes estimate by other methods. The figure of 180,000 seems to have come through later writer Strabo, who noted a different distance between the two cities, so corrected the estimate to 180,000 stades. So, Posidonius agreed with Eratosthenes, but a later author said his premise was incorrect and came up with a smaller estimate, based on Posidonus. This is discussed in Posidonius#Geography,_ethnology,_and_geology.

In any case, exactly why Columbus made the choices he did is unknowable. There is some suggestion of his wanting to shade results, given his two separate logs on the fist voyage. Each was kept in different units (see Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus#First_voyage_(1492–1493) (as documented by Bartolomé de las Casas), but even that is uncertain - there could have been legitimate reasons for what looked to some like deception. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert

@Eccekevin: Sorry I hit enter before typing an edit summary. The previous wording was 100% not more nuanced just because it used that word. Columbus's popular legacy as the discoverer of America was ill-informed and needs to be nipped in the bud. Happy to discuss further, but your revert took out a reference providing additional context. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the state of the article as reverted to by User:Eccekevin. The current text is heavy-handed, and the text ought not digress into the Church communications about Greenland because this article isn’t about proving a Norse presence in Greenland. It suffices to note the well established fact of a Norse presence in North America. Strebe (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't like the editorializing tone of "erroneously and popularly". The sentence right after it explains the nuance in a good way, without having to use this tone. The legacy of Columbus is complex. Also, whether or not he was the "discover of America" is a long and complex discussion, and Wikipedia does not take sides, it explains the various facts and viewpoints. It is obvious the Vikings arrived in America, but it is also obvious that what Columbus did was different. Hence, the text is good as it is: is says that for centuries Columbus was seen as the discovered, but then it notes that we now know that Vikings have arrived first (albeit without a leaving lasting presence) and it ends with a good quote that summarizes the situation. No need for paternalist and editorial comments.Eccekevin (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of opinion, though I admit I wrongly tried to change too much with one edit. We should keep in mind that this section is really just an overview of things discussed in more detail in subsections. Perhaps we need a subsection on the perspective of Columbus as the discoverer (or not) of the Americas, just as we have one for Flat Earth mythology. Here is my perspective on things needing to be addressed:

• "Christopher Columbus came to be considered the discoverer of America in U.S. and European popular culture" is unsourced and outdated. The cited NatGeo source says the opposite. Ever since the 20th-century scholarship on the Norse discovery, particularly the archaeology at L'Anse aux Meadows, Columbus is not "considered the discoverer of America". This was an erroneous point of view that had long been corrected before the existence of Wikipedia, though it took longer for it to be corrected in American textbooks. This could be discussed in full detail as I suggested in a subsection.
• Then there is the rewording of the Norse discovery of North America, which is really just a copyedit, but is more neutral since we don't know that Vinland was the same site as L'Anse aux Meadows.
• I removed two unsourced, poorly worded, and possibly false or otherwise out-of-place sentences: "Columbus's efforts brought the Americas to the attention of Europe at a time ripe for Europe to act upon." The need for new trade is all discussed under the Background section, though the discovery was not immediately very profitable for Europe, except in the context of the Conquistadors... but that is all discussed elsewhere in more detail. "Thus, Columbus was able to initiate the enduring association between the Earth's two major landmasses and their inhabitants." What enduring association? What the hell?
• Dugard's quote isn't very useful, because Columbus was mostly famous owing to the wide publication of his first letter. The Vikings also stayed, as the Vatican's knowledge proves. The Dugard quote is deceptively catchy, and was probably printed on the back of the book to sell copies, but adds very little here!
• Finally, the addition of the Christian knowledge of Greenland is very relevant to the article, but should be noted earlier, in the Background section, and perhaps also in a new subsection on the originality of Columbus's discovery. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there could be a subsection on the title of discover of America, what that has been interpreted to be throught time, and different viewpoints today. It is obvioust that Columbus once was seen as such, but we know today that it is indeed more nuanced, and he was not the first human nor the first European to land in America. But on the other hand, it is indeed nuanced enough a situation that dismissing everything as 'erroneous' is also flatly editorializing and incorrect. 'Discoverer' also depends on definitions that people have given to that word, hence it is subjective. This is why I like the current text: it says indeed that he was seen in the past as the discoverer, but in reality this view has evolved and is more nuanced.

In popular culture Columbus has been for centuries described as the discoverer of America in popular culture (correctly or not), this is not really questioned by anyone. This section is dealing with his legacy among the public. Again, there is nuance to this, hence either calling him discoverer or saying it's erroneous are both ways are negating the nuance.

enduring association this is fairly obvious. Since his voyages, the American and the Eurasian continent have experienced non-stop connection in form of migration, colonization, trade, and communications. Are you questioning the fact that the Columbian voyages put these two continents into contact that was not experience before? It is referred to as Columbian exchange and there's a whole page about it. It is why we have tomatoes in Italy and cows and pigs in Brazil.Eccekevin (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, no one is questioning that the Vikings landed in America. This is addressed in the current section, and no one is denying it nor did I remove anything.

The quote sums up with Columbus remained important in world history. The fact is that the Vikings did land in Greenland, but barely left it. The only known settlement in mainland America, in Canada, lasted less than a generation. The Vikings didn't generate a widespaning connection between the American and Eurasian continents, nor was knowledge of a whole new continent brought back to Europe thought their voyage, nor is there any indication that the Native Americans became aware of the Eurasian continent through the Vikings. The quote served to illustrate that there is a significant difference between the consequences of the explorations og the Vikings and those of Columbus and the Spanish/Portuguese. There could be a better quote or wording, for sure, and I invite you to propose one, but until we have something better I think we should keep this one.

Eccekevin (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your objections a little better. In some cases you may be right, but in others, I think a new solution other than our two versions is needed. The main problem for me is sourcing, so I think as long you include a source we should move forward by boldly editing the article, rather than propose an endless series of changes here. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I just advise against categorixal edits like "Columbus discovered America and anyone who disgarees is erroneous" and the reverse. I think nuance is important, hence why like something like the current text is fine with me. Concering the quote, I agree it is not ideal, but its also not bad. Eccekevin (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Article too long

It would be useful to be able to read the whole story of Columbus from start to finish, but currently that would take very a long time. Per WP:TOOBIG this article is too long. It doesn't need to be divided, but I propose that some material, already well covered in related articles, be pared down; e.g. Origin theories of Christopher Columbus and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. The article could also benefit from a general copy edit and a reduction in WP:REFBLOAT. --Cornellier (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 Strebe (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What evils did Columbus himself do? What did others do after he documented a route to the New World?

It has become very popular in some circles to blame Columbus for all the ills that followed as Europeans came to the New World. I think this is illogical and unfair. We cannot blame Alfred Nobel for the ways dynamite has been misused. As I read the article in its present form, I find very unclear discussion of what Columbus himself did. We cannot blame Columbus for all of the bad things that Europeans did in the New World. I suggest that the article's section on "Criticism and defense" clarify which things were done by Columbus himself. For example, he himself did not introduce small pox. Wikipedia is for careful discussion of facts, even when the topic generates emotions. Pete unseth (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I just updated the article to make it clear that while Cortés' arrival sparked the pandemic, smallpox is thought to have already arrived. The section also mentions slavery (which Columbus facilitated) as a contributor to weakened immunity, including the dismemberment Columbus directly ordered as punishment. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There are almost two subjects here, Columbus the man, and Columbus the mythical founder of the USA. E.g. the section "Flat Earth mythology", if that is to be mentioned at all, it must be kept separate from the historical record. Agree the bulk of the article should focus on the known historical facts, with a subsection on "legacy" or "historical perspective". Must be careful to distinguish what he actually did vs. what he is perceived to have done and their retrospective moral evaluation. --Cornellier (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor has reverted deletion of material, asking for consensus. My post in this section speaks for me. Any interested please respond. Pete unseth (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it is not fair to judge Columbus singularly for his own personal actions. Sure, we can't judge him for "all of the bad things that Europeans did in the New World", as you put it, but Columbus was a powerful man in control of multiple ships and therefore crews, and later in charge of many more as a colonial governor. For sure he was responsible for many people and their actions, not just his own. What you deleted - details about a native being given from Columbus to a friend to be raped - definitely qualifies. ɱ (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The Tony Horwitz comment should definitely be removed, since he is not an historian and it is not even about Columbus. A lot of other stuff also it not about Columbus and should be removed. Eccekevin (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I weakly oppose removing the Horwitz comment because we don't assert he is anything other than an author, and his article is linked. A better source would be an improvement, but this information has been on the article for a long time without issue. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's no reason to keep it. it's a comment not about Columbus, and not by a historian. The whole story has been called into question too since the original writing of Michele da Cuneo have not survived.

This article is a mess, and it became a bit of a coatrack article with users adding all kinds of information about colonization that have little to do with Columbus' brief time on the island. For example, I appreciate your specification of the timeline for smallpox, which up until now the article implicitly attributed to Columbus. As Conrellier well pointed out, there is the "myth Columbus" (both good myth and bad myth) and the historical Columbus, and the current article has too much of the mythical one. Eccekevin (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you mark the parts of the article you find problematic with tags like "better source needed" or "dubious" if you think they don't correctly represent the relevant sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Might also be useful to find tertiary sources giving an overview of the state of the subject's historicity. Right now we see a laundry list of differing views of various historians, e.g. "Charles C. Mann writes that .... According to the historian Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés ... Samuel Eliot Morison ... writes ... according to Noble David Cook ... Andrés Reséndez of University of California, Davis, says ... --Cornellier (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Criticism and defense section is for presenting the various scholarly viewpoints. Attributing these quotations to their authors is appropriate. In any other section, it would be unnecessary to rely so heavily on direct quotes, but this is the appropriate place for it. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

DOB of Christopher Columbus

If it says on top that Christopher Columbus was born from 25 August and 31 October 1451 why does it just say below his portrait that he was born before 31 October 1451 that could mean that he was born anytime before like 22 BC for instance. Jdietr601 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - now updated. Facts707 (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Italian ?

When born, there was no Italy. I think Venezian is more proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.148.98.50 (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

While the modern country of Italy may not have existed at the time, the region had been referred to as Italy since the early-2nd century BC, and both the terms Italianus and Italicus were used during the 15th century to refer to people from that region. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a great point. I think this information would be useful to the article and could be placed in a footnote at the first mention of his Italian status. This keeps getting brought up, and such a note would help to put doubts to rest. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't call people born in Plymouth Colony American or North Anerican, even if they did themselves. We would write "born in Plymouth Colony, now Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States..." Facts707 (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"an Italian explorer..." is misleading as many readers will confuse it with the modern country. Further, linking Italian to Italians, a vague description, is of no help whatsoever. "an explorer and navigator from Genoa, then the capital of the Republic of Genoa and now part of Italy..." is much more accurate and encyclopedic without bothering Genoese or Italians. Facts707 (talk) 05:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also Columbus was definitely not Venezian/Venetian, the Republic of Venice was a major rival of the Republic of Genoa. Facts707 (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus May be Norwegian

Disruptive and unnecessary fringe claims

According to a historian, Tor Busch Sannes, Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman named Christopher Bonde Columbus who discovered America in 1477, not in 1492. Sannes said Columbus' father could have been a member of the noble Bonde family who he believes fled to Italy in the 1400s to avoid persecution in Norway. The most convincing evidence was Columbus' coat of arms, said Sannes. In the position designating a father's lineage, it bears an emblem identical to that used by the Bonde family, he said. The professor Tor Borch Sannes has spent 30 years researching Christopher Columbus and his voyage to America. This is the book: Christopher Columbus: en europeer fra Norge? The professor has written many books. There is nothing in history to show he was not born in Norway. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC) WP:FRINGE. Strebe (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Fringe ? Please don't joke with me. Historians dispute the details of the explorer's clouded childhood. Several countries - including Spain, Portugal, Croatia and Greece - claim him as a native son. Sannes said the evidence could just as easily lead to a conclusion that Columbus was born in Norway. The professor Tor Borch Sannes pointed out that Columbus gathered his knowledge about the New World from his early trip to Norway in 1477, and that Columbus's coat of arms was identical to that of a Norwegian family's from the Nordfjord. Columbus never wrote in Italian, he called himself a foreigner in southern Europe and he was described in some biographies as tall, fair and blue-eyed, typical Nordic characteristics. The book suggests Columbus was invited to join the 1477 Iceland expedition because he learned to sail in Nordic waters as a Norwegian youngster in Nordfjord, on Norway's midwestern coast. His nationality is uncertain. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Filipa Perestrelo, a Portuguese noblewoman who married Christopher Columbus, a wool weaver. In which movie ????? Columbus had blond hair and blue eyes and was really named Christopher Bonde from the town of Hyen, just north of the Sognefjord. Columbus was a Norwegian nobleman named Christopher Bonde who discovered America in 1477. Bonde actually undertook a voyage north of Iceland in 1477, according to the World Book Encyclopedia. Sannes argues that voyage could have reached Canada or New England 15 years before Columbus laid anchor in the West Indies in 1492. Christopher Columbus: en europeer fra Norge? based his argument on theories originally advanced by the Norwegian writer Svein Magnus Grodys (1969). There are several authors who claim that Columbus was Norwegian. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Clearly fringe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) The Norwegian thesis of Columbus' origins is set out in Tor Borch. Sannes's Christopher Columbus: en europeer fra Norge (1991). Sannes refers in the book's foreword to earlier writings with titles Columbus - the most famous Norwegian ! and Columbus was from Hyen !. The author of the Norwegian thesis, he says, is Svein Magnus Grodys, who made the connection between the Norwegian Bonde family from the Nordfjord and the Columbus-Colon family of Genoa. The real name of the discoverer of America, then, was Christopher Bonde. "Bonde" means farmer or settler - "agricola" or "colonus" in Latin. And "Kol" or "Col" was the more genuine from of Bonde. The family of that name was one of the noblest and most ancient in the North. Its patriarch was Thumelic (Latin for Bonde), a Roman consul. Among its members were not only the Norwegian and Swedish royal families, but also the counts of Barcelona and kings of Aragon, and the French Capetians. There are many professors who speak of a Columbus of Norwegian origin. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC) The sources cannot be ignored: Christopher Columbus—a European from Norway ? Tor Borch Sannes, 1991. Columbus - the most famous Norwegian ! Svein Magnus Grodys, 1969. Columbus was from Hyen ! Svein Magnus Grodys, 1970. The professor Tor Borch Sannes has spent 30 years researching Christopher Bonde and his voyage to America. The author is one of the leading experts on Bonde. Tor Borch Sannes argues that Columbus' father was from Norway and worked in the shipping industry in Italy. He was Norwegian. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Columbus had blond hair and blue eyes, was named Christopher Bonde, and was from Nordfjord, where the Bonde family had a coat of arms identical to that of Columbus. Everything is written in the book. Bonde was Norwegian. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Columbus was born in Nordfjord, Norway. Borch Sannes claims that Iohannes Colon, the grandfather of Christopher Columbus, was one Johannes Bonde, the grandson of Tord Bonde and thus a first cousin of King Charles VIII of Sweden/Charles I of Norway (whose name was Karl Knudsson Bonde), and a second cousin of Erik Johansson Vasa. Borch Sannes further points out that two of Columbus' father's neighbours had the name Bondi. According to Borch Sannes, the Bonde lineage originally had its seat in Hyen, Nordfjord, but disappeared from Nordfjord with the Black Death. --79.27.215.190 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Confusing edit

@TrisAdler: This edit renders the text incoherent. Columbus takes “several” slaves back with him and then orders 550 slaves to be sold in Europe? Are these the same slaves? A different batch transported in a different voyage? Or did he merely “order” this to happen, but it didn’t get enacted? Please fix. Strebe (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2021

He was born in 1450 and lived to be 55. 104.175.202.214 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

169.204.208.117 (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

ok

 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. — LauritzT (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Castilian Monarchs ?

"Castilian monarchs Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II agreed to sponsor a journey west."

Queen Isabella I was the only Castilian monarch. Ferdinand (King of Aragon) was still not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.186.45 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

164.116.95.250 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

HE was not the First to discover AMERICA he was the second. LEIF ERIKSON was the first to discover america. And he took the land from of us native american's because he was greedy. We were the ones who actually were segregated the most we were slaves and our land go stolen from us by force.

 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. Article already has a section headed "Originality of discovery of America" Cannolis (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Diseases

You CANNOT keep blaming people for giving other diseases that they did not understand. They did not understand how germs or how sicknesses transferred to other people. They didn’t know you could be asymptomatic and give someone else that disease. You cannot blame them for something they did not intentionally do. They did not knowingly or willingly give them diseases. Deadbeat99 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

1st landing

Christopher Columbus first arrived at an island in what is now Honduras - not the Bahamas. RanitaIrlandesa (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use Talk pages as a forum. Strebe (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: revert of text saying that Columbus "reached the Americas" rather than "he independently discovered the Americas"

It's a sad commentary that I should have to explain why so many native peoples are offended by the term "discovery": it implies and perpetuates the notion that because the Americas were devoid of Christian populations at the time of Columbus' arrival in the New World, that those people were effectively sub-human, and serves to obliterate the real history of the subjugation of the American Indians by European "discoverers". Using the term in an encyclopedia article indicates either ignorance, or a willful disregard of the points of view of native peoples by defenders of the status quo that still oppresses them.

White reactionaries and other zealots who hate "political correctness" are the most vocal defenders of the terms "discovered" or "discovery" in relation to the arrival of white Europeans in the New World or in other parts of the world previously unknown to them. These encounters often resulted in the subjugation or outright enslavement of their native peoples, along with the theft of those lands and their despoliation to exploit resources for the benefit of the white invaders, usually with the forced labor of the very peoples who had occupied them since ancient times.

Permit me to quote Robert J. Miller writing on the Doctrine of Discovery in "The Development of the International Law of Discovery", a chapter of Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies, published by Oxford University Press. This book traces the development of the doctrine from a papal bull issued in 1434:

The primary legal precedent that still controls native affairs and rights in these four countries is an international law formulated in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that is currently known as the Doctrine of Discovery. [F]our countries applied and utilized the Doctrine and English legal thought to control and dominate the Indigenous peoples that already lived in and owned the lands that today comprise Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. When England and English colonists set out to explore, exploit, and settle new lands outside of Europe in the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries, they justified their claims to sovereignty and governmental and property rights over these territories and the Indigenous inhabitants with the Discovery Doctrine. This international law had been created and justified by religious and ethnocentric ideas of European superiority over the other cultures, religions, and races of the world. In essence, the Doctrine provided that newly arrived Europeans immediately and automatically acquired legally recognized property rights in native lands and also gained governmental, political, and commercial rights over the inhabitants without the knowledge or the consent of the Indigenous peoples.

Now back to my shiraz and pannetone. Carlstak (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Reached the Americas, not a discovery

I've explained in my edit summary and the obsolete source template my reasons. The Britannica source is obsolete as there is a new edition that doesn't back the old wording, and views have changed considerably on the "discovery" bit since the 1950s. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Although this isn't exactly how WP:BRD works (where the discussion takes place first) I'll jump in and say I agree we don't need to say he discovered the Americas. That isn't the significance of what he did; it was his highly public return and promotion of the continent that mattered in both the short and long term. UpdateNerd (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:BRD isn't even a guideline, and we had clearly obsolete sources backing the old claim. I don't think there's any real question that modern thought, at least among historians, is not to claim he discovered the Americas. It's not even certain there weren't European fishermen fishing the Grand Banks secretly before 1492. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

True; it's actually a cliché in academe at this point that Columbus didn't "discover" the Americas, except in the sense that one "discovers" something that may have been known by others for a long time, which renders it ambiguous anyway, so best not to use it at all. Carlstak (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So, his "voyages of discovery", are instead "voyages of nothing new"? Certainly reading histories of the time, his letters describing the voyages hit Europe like a thunderbolt, in every functional aspect, a tremendous discovery. It's only in the last couple of decades, with the emphasis on degrading the accomplishments of our predecessors, that we have felt it necessary to remove any indication that he traveled into the unknown. Indeed, more unknown than he knew, his predictions were wrong in so many ways. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

No one here said his voyages are "voyages of nothing new"—you wrote the words. What you call "degrading the accomplishments of our predecessors", I call telling the history from the point of view, as far as possible, of the people Columbus enslaved, a history given short shrift by Eurocentric texts that degrade the accomplishments of those people in their sphere, and glorify the theft of their lands. The Encyclopedia of American Indian Contributions to the World: 15,000 Years of Inventions and Innovations is a bracing corrective. Carlstak (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

North America was previously colonized by the Norse, which was known to the Vatican prior to Columbus's rediscovery. His initial letter claimed he had sailed all the way to Asia. The excitement around the first potential circumnavigation and the subsequent correction by Amerigo Vespucci helped popularize knowledge of the land which was previously known to a select few. Unfortunately, the Norse colonization wasn't confirmed in modernity until the 1960s archaeological find, so the completely false notion that Columbus was first had become an accepted "fact" and is still (in some cases) being taught. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What is a “discovery”? We say daily that astronomers discover this and that exoplanet. Of course, we have no idea whether a civilization on some other planet has already discovered any of those planets. When we say that astronomers discover something, we do not thereby claim that no one else knew about it before. Instead, we mean that this is our first news of the finding. Many discoveries credited to this or that person may well have been found earlier by someone else, but the knowledge died out before it reached general knowledge. Columbus discovered the existence of the Americas… for the Europeans. But what about the Icelandic Norse? Yes, they discovered (at least some part of) North America… for themselves. Possibly the Basque and English fishermen discovered the Grand Banks (discovered… for fishermen of northwestern Europe) before Columbus. As has always been understood, discovery is contextual. For example, in my copy of the 1792 Morse Geography, Morse discusses the various claims to the discovery of the Americas. He acknowledges that the Norse probably landed on American shores, but says they do not deserve the credit because their discovery made little difference to the world. He dismisses many other claims, including those of the Basque and English, both because they are dubious and because those discoveries, if they happened, made little difference to the world. Nobody ever thought that the ancestors of the Native Americans didn’t discover the Americas. We also don’t know if earlier groups discovered the Americas but died out or were absorbed by later groups.

For all we know, a Native American rafted to Europe before Columbus sailed. If that happened, it would have been an independent discovery of Europe. The Polynesians probably made it to the coast of South America; evidence slowly grows to support that conjecture. That was an independent discovery. And so on.

In the sciences, many discoveries are made independently several times, and are so noted. The term “independent discovery” shouldn’t be controversial in this context; nor ought its use in this article be interpreted as trivializing the suffering and dispossession of the native inhabitants. I don’t think the solution is to banish the word “discover”; the solution is to understand what the word means and to use it accordingly. Maybe all the sources are giving up and rushing to banish the term anyway. « shrug » We do need sources. Strebe (talk)

Of course we need sources, but not Samuel Morris or an outdated encyclopedia - indeed any generalist encyclopedia. But I certainly wouldn't say "giving up and rushing to banish the term anyway" to describe a change in views. By the way, User:Strebe, I use reply helper and it works with all the editors above except you. Any idea why? Doug Weller talk 10:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

“Independent discovery” is an accurate description, that at the same time notices that he wasn't necessarily the first nor the only one, but it does underline the importance of his trips in connecting the Eurasian world and the Americas. Eccekevin (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

We need modern sources for that. Doug Weller talk 17:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling it an "independent discovery" seems to be WP:OR. A nice attempt to call it something other than an original discovery, but since the Americas were known in Europe, we can't confirm he wasn't aware of them. He was a well-traveled sailor who went as far as Iceland and could have heard about the earlier Norse departures from others. He certainly didn't realize how large the New World was, but that doesn't mean he or those who funded his voyages didn't know about it; the Vatican certainly did. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If by Vatican you mean the Papal documents that talk about the existence of the Dioceses of Garðar, Greenland and its bishop, we have to be very careful. Just because they knew there was one bishop located on an island beyond Iceland does not mean that they had any idea that there was a whole continent with millions of people spanning all the way to Tierra del Fuego (if anything, the opposite, since Gardar is described in the Papal letters as "in fine mundi" - "at the extreme point of the earth", suggesting that they didn't believe there was anything beyond that). All they knew is that there was one small outpost with a bishop, there is no indication of anything further, let alone the idea that it was on a separate "continent" (of course, the idea itself of continents is modern). No serious historian has ever claimed knowledge of America as a huge separate continent before 1492. Eccekevin (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

When did Columbus find that there was a huge separate continent? Doug Weller talk 19:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

He didn't, and there are two continents from the subarctic to Tierra del Fuego. Carlstak (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The letter also mentions that the colonies were in touch from "985 to 1410", and that it was significant that the communication had stopped. Further, Inuit captives and kayaks were taken to Scandinavia in 1420. These points clearly demonstrate that knowledge of the Norse settlements in America had begun spreading to Europe long before Columbus. The Spanish rediscovery was simply the watershed moment. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It is original research. Eccekevin's latest revert summary rather disingenuously calls Doug Weller's change to "On his first voyage he reached the Americas" "controversial", which is nonsense; there's nothing controversial about it, but saying " he independently discovered the Americas is controversial because it's not at all clear in meaning, as he seems to think it is. It implies that it was an independent effort, but of course the voyage would never have taken place without the Catholic Monarchs' backing. It seems that Eccekevin really, really, wants the word discovered in the text. Kindly show us some scholarly cites that back it up, rather than just arguing the point. Carlstak (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

By "controversial" I just mean in Wiki-speak: some edits are uncontroversial and others are controversial, i.e. where other editors disagree. I do agree on one of your points tho: "indipendent" is not a good word given the expedition was funded by the Spanish monarchs. I think what we ought to convey is that the trip was not based on previous Norse explorations or on any other hypothesized European contact with the Americas (as the current historiography believes). Of course, there is no indication Columbus had any idea he was discovering a new continent. Rather, he meant to "discover" a new way to the Indies. Eccekevin (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Independent discovery does not imply that the effort lacked sponsorship. Strebe (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The new source is a university of Miami English professor.[1]. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: What is “reply helper” and how would I go about “discovering” why it doesn’t work when replying to me? Strebe (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s a beta tool, look in preferences. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think that at the very least we absolutely cannot say that he discovered or independently discovered America in the article voice anywhere in the article (let alone in the lead!), since the sources make it clear that that is a seriously disputed claim. We can attribute it somewhere in the article, or describe it as something that some people believed at certain points in history, or as part of his myth or otherwise something not presented as uncontested fact, but we cannot state it as undisputed fact, because it clearly is not. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the neocolonialist spirit is alive and well on this page, and that the views of the native peoples of the Americas count for nothing. Let's be clear: Samuel Eliot Morison dismissed the indigenous peoples of the Americas as "pagans expecting short and brutish lives void of any hope for the future", and earlier referred to them as "Stone Age savages". He was a racist.

Heike Paul wrote:

Ferdinand claims that Columbus and nobody else before and after him had discovered the Americas and that he deserved unqualified praise for that; like many others, Ferdinand never questioned this 'discovery’ by taking into account the fact that his father never knew or fully realized where he had been. Texts like Ferdinand’s continued to shape the image of Columbus as the agent of 'discovery', and furthered the perpetuation of the idea of a 'discovery' of the Americas in general.

Historians have been deconstructing the Columbus myth of discovery since the early 1990s, but some editors here seem to prefer the Columbus myth, as described by Barbara Ransby, an African-American historian, who said it best:

The manufactured, but widely accepted, myth of Columbus as the brave and noble visionary who set sail on an unknown course and discovered a whole new world belies the real legacy of Columbus: a bloody legacy of rape, pillage and plunder. But, it is a myth which is quite consistent with how most of US history is recounted by mainstream historians – as great deeds by great white men which resulted in great things for all humankind. More specifically, it is a myth which celebrates imperial conquest, male supremacy and the triumph of military might as necessary components of progress and civilization.

Wikipedia should not promote the political mythology of racist imperialism. Carlstak (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carlstak: If you image that the people you’re trying to persuade don’t already understand the points you’re making; if you believe taunting them with libelous accusations such as “neocolonial spirit” will persuade them to your beliefs; if you think exaggerating and turning what editors have said into caricatures just because they believe more or different things than you, then I invite you to give some time to the study of how Wikipedia exchanges are supposed to work for cooperating in improving articles.

Why does Morison keep coming up? Who invoked him in support of anything here? Even in the article, the only citation in the article about this matter is where he states that Columbus’s cruel policies resulted in “complete genocide”—hardly an apologistic pronouncement. But sure, remove that if you want. Or maybe let’s talk politely about what needs to happen here, starting with citations. Strebe (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Strebe: he was one of the sources for independently discovered, or at least he was cited at the end of the paragraph. I removed it and it hasn't been replaced. That's why he keeps coming up. Doug Weller talk 09:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I see that you marked as obsolete, but haven’t removed, a Britannica citation. Is that the Morison quote, and is that the one that states “independent discovery”? The newly added citation from Carlstak doesn’t seem appropriate; it seems like it ought to be, instead, a statement by a modern historian on the consensus among historians about how to refer Columbus’s explorations. It shouldn’t be a word from a sentence that didn’t specifically, deliberately address the matter. At least an encyclopedia has the intent of presenting the consensus of experts. I’m not advocating any particular source (yet) and I’m not advocating an old source. I also am no fan of Columbus. I am, however, a fan of words and I don’t like seeing them abused. Saying Columbus “reached” the Americas is like saying I “reached” Australia. Strebe (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. [10] is both Morrison and Britannica. I thought I"d removed them both from there. I don't have Morison anymore, and no access to the 1993 Britannica. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not the best source; I was looking for a source that used the words "Columbus reached", which is imprecise, in my opinion. It was a makeshift I added for the moment to try to support Doug's change, but we don't really need a source that contains that exact phrasing. I think I can supply a better source; I have a couple dozen browser tabs with books and papers that I need to review, but don't have access to at the moment, as they're on another computer not with me. I'll do that tonight, perhaps someone else will come up with one sooner. Carlstak (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just my two cents: why look for a source for preferred phrasing, and not simply represent what the qualified sources say? Sources like Morrison are good for merely breaking down Columbus's journals and other primary sources, but are too early to contextualize the Norse discoveries in Newfoundland. So why not just present the information as-is, instead of trying to summarize into one or two words? "Reached" isn't a good word to summarize everything Columbus did, which is more about the Columbian exchange, than any discovery (new or independent). UpdateNerd (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume you're replying to my comment, UpdateNerd. Like I said, "we don't really need a source that contains that exact phrasing" and what I'm looking for pretty much fits your description. I'm having some issues with restoring the tabs of that particular browser session (over 500), but if necessary I can get the links to sources from Zotero, where I saved everything in the cloud. A few glasses and the peace pipe and I'll get it together.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that the Columbus "discovery" construct is the foundation of a racist mythology still being perpetuated (especially in the US with the rise of Trumpism), and that's the main reason we shouldn't use it. Carlstak (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I hate the politicization of history. However, in this country at this moment, we live in such a period of upheaval that it can't really be avoided any more. I just wanted to make a separate comment about the significance of the "discovery" of the Americas for what we call the history of "western civilization." The enormous impact of the slow realization of all the implications of the "discovery" over the course of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, and in many ways up to this very day, cannot be in my view, denied or lessened in any way, shape, or form. On the other hand, there is also the fact that we cannot study the historical development of civilizations, of any civilization on this earth apparently, without noticing the prominent role played by military might, wars, conquests, and mass destructions. That just seems to be the way this material world behaves and operates, and if this "western civilization" we live in is to endure, we will still have to come to grips with this fact, somehow. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Would it be better if the "discovery" was attributed to Norsemen? :) UpdateNerd (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No. You may be kidding, but it would still fit the rubric of the subsequent Doctrine of Discovery (which by the way, is not the same thing as the Discovery doctrine) used as moral cover by the thieves, slave traders and murderers of western imperialism, and there's no compelling reason we should use this contested word at all in any case. For what it's worth (probably not much), I wrote my first article on this subject in 1977, and received many angry responses. I doubt it would be different now, even if I were more polite than I was then as a revolutionary firebrand, but the statues are coming down. Carlstak (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: My point is that the Columbus "discovery" construct is the foundation of a racist mythology still being perpetuated (especially in the US with the rise of Trumpism), and that's the main reason we shouldn't use it by Carlstak. I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy or to right the wrongs of the world per WP:NOTADVOCACY. However noble your intent, this isn't the place for promoting social causes, even if they are worthy. Wikipedia must describe what happened in an accurate way, regardless of its social or political implications. Eccekevin (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the talk page for improving an article, not discourse on racial justice. Regardless, the consensus and arguments seem to be in favor of not using the terms "discovered" or "independently discovered". The only non-E. Britannica source currently cited is Paquet, who says "reached". If in doubt, do a quick Google search for "Columbus discovery", which quickly demonstrates several results from semi-respectable sources against using the phrase. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, the article would be improved without relying on the "discovery" construct, but the parenthetical statement about Trump muddles the meaning and is a bit gratuitous here. I meant to say: "My point is that the Columbus "discovery" construct is the foundation of a racist mythology still being perpetuated...and that's the main reason we shouldn't use it". I did not intend to imply that this would be a consequence of "the rise of Trumpism". From my reading, I gather that repudiation of the "discovery" construct is the modern scholarly consensus, and the fact that it is the foundation of the synthetic Columbus myth is one of the main reasons. I understand full well that this talk page is not a place for advocacy, and my comment didn't necessarily have to be interpreted that way, but I can see that it was unclear. Regardless, to clarify things, I've struck that phrase. Carlstak (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, just a cursory reading of the article shows that it has misquotes, original research, and relies on many outdated sources for some of the scholarly assertions it describes. For example, the "Brutality" section, which I've just corrected (and needs more work), says, "Other historians have argued that some of the accounts of the brutality of Columbus and his brothers have been exaggerated as part of the Black Legend, a historical tendency towards anti-Spanish sentiment in historical sources dating as far back as the 16th century, which they speculate may continue to taint scholarship into the present day."

This text I've just quoted cites outdated sources dated 1971 and 1969. Scholarly approaches to the subject have evolved a good deal since a half-century ago, and citing Washington Irving (I removed the citation) is beyond the pale. This article needs serious review and updating. (I'm not using the green template for quotes because it hurts my eyes.;-) The mystery to me is how it ever attained "Featured" status. Carlstak (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Christopher Columbus

Cristóvão Cólon was not Italian at all . He was born Salvador Zarco Fernandes , the son of the Duke of Beja Portugal , D. Fernandes . His mother was the daughter of the navigator Jew , Zarco , who discovered the island of Madeira . Salvador Zarco Fernandes was born in the Portuguese village of Cuba . Later his father would marry and have a second legitimate son who would be King Manuel of Portugal . Salvador changed his name to Cristóvão Cólon . He was the half brother of King Manuel of Spain and through his mother he was a Jew . All cartographers of that time were Portuguese or Spanish Jews . Cristóvão Cólon was a Portuguese Jew , a crypto- Jew . He married a Portuguese women , Moniz , and had a sim Diogo . All his letter to his son are written in perfect Portuguese . Cristóvão Cólon never spike Italian well because he was not Italian . He spoke with an accent . All of the places Cristóvão Cólon discovered he gave Portuguese names . Some only Portuguese with distinct Portuguese accent signals . Christopher Colon , wrongly called Christopher Columbus , was a Portuguese crypto-Jew . Christopher Columbus is not the correct name of the navigator who sailed and shared his findings strictly only with the Portuguese and Spanish . None of Cristovão’s discoveries were at all connected with Italy or Genoa . Please correct the inaccuracies of this page regarding Cristóvão Cólon . 2001:8003:9014:7700:E0BD:E253:3A99:6C29 (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't (or at least shouldn't) traffic in conspiracy theories. Do you really think you can imperiously command editors to change the article to suit your fantasies and it shall be done? If you're serious, why don't you at least try to present your case and cite some sources? There are sources for these fantastic claims, mostly in Portuguese, of course. The relevant quotes would need to be translated. The article could have a section to address such claims, e.g., that Columbus was Spanish, and even Polish (!). This article is fairly lame and still needs a great deal of work anyway; it might profit. Carlstak (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any “imperious command”. I see a polite request from someone who very likely believes what they wrote and doesn’t understand how Wikipedia works. Please don’t bite. Strebe (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right, Strebe. My apologies to the requester; I misread his post in my haste, reacting emotionally when I saw the words "navigator Jew". Somehow it registered as "Jew navigator".

Carlstak (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)q

We already have an article on Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Various sources claim that he was a Crypto-Jew, a Catalan, a Portuguese, a Byzantine Greek, a Sardinian, a Norwegian, a Scot, and a a Pole. Dimadick (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Arrival date in Bocas del Toro

@Carlstak: Surely the October 5th/15th difference noted in your edit is old-style vs new-style dates. The 5th/6th difference may just be uncertainty or even time-zone difference between Panama and Spain. Strebe (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Surely not. The Gregorian calendar was not promulgated until October 1582, ninety years after Columbus's first voyage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Silvio Bedini uses the old-style dates in his text, so that would be the earlier date numerically. He was Historian Emeritus of the Smithsonian Institution, where he served for 25 years. He is reliable. Also, this WP article itself uses old-style, so it's consistent with that usage. Carlstak (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And that's as it should be. The Gregorian or New Style calendar was NOT made retrospective. So, before 1582 there was only the Julian calendar, or, as the people of those days would have called it, "the calendar". Introducing Gregorian dates here - which is saying what the dates would have been if that calendar had been promulgated 90 years before it was actually promulgated - is a nonsense. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Norse “persistent contact”

This seems misleading: “The Norse had colonized North America around 500 years before Columbus around 500 years before Columbus, with some degree of contact with Europe being maintained until about 1410.” The contact was from the Greenland colony, not the Vinland colony. The story here feels jumbled. The Greenland colony was never in doubt among historians and the educated public, whereas the Vinland colony’s historicity and location were uncertain until the discovery at L’Anse aux Meadows. That means that the popular conception of Columbus as discoverer was never based on ignorance or uncertainty about the Greenland colony, contrary to what this section in the article implies. Even the probability of Norse explorations in North America proper was widely acknowledged before the finds at L’Anse aux Meadows, but because those explorations did not result in durable historical consequences, they were not considered important even if eventually they were to be found to have happened. The business about “discovery” was all about consequence, rather than precedence. Historians are explicit about this distinction, and they’ve been explicit about it for centuries. Strebe (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is highly misleading. The idea that the entirety of Europe was aware of this colony in America (and even the idea that there was a whole separate continent) is not based on any evidence. The phrasing needs to be adjusted. Also, "The Norse had colonized North America" makes is seem like this was a high-scale colonization. In reality it was rather a small and shourt lasting endeavour. I would rephrase as "The Norse had established a colony on L’Anse aux Meadows", removing the "North America" that makes it seem like the colonized the continent. Also, as you say, the "some degree of contact" should be explicitly referred to the Greenland colony) (specifically, Garðar, Greenland. Eccekevin (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The content was added by UpdateNerd with this edit. It was sourced then to the self-published book Here was Vinland: The Great Lakes Region of America. I left the text mostly as it was and sourced it to Norse Greenland: Viking Peasants in the Arctic by Arnved Nedkvitne, a Norwegian medievalist historian. He writes: "The historical reason for this Scandinavian link was Norse immigrants who settled in Greenland in AD 985 and lived there until at least 1410, i.e. for more than 425 years. This community numbered at its peak 2000–3000 and... [i]ts members were the first Europeans to set foot on American soil, which they called Vinland, and they linked the two continents through their shipping."

As our WP article says, "L’Anse aux Meadows site served as an exploration base and winter camp for expeditions heading southward into the Gulf of St. Lawrence." These exploratory expeditions were being launched from Greenland, which still maintained communications with Norway during that period, using L'Anse aux Meadows as their base. So L'Anse aux Meadows, for as long as it lasted, was in contact with Norway through the Greenland community; that's where the expeditions were coming from.

Also, "the business about 'discovery' " as presented by European explorers and historians is Eurocentric, and ignores the fact that the native peoples had their own "discovery" myths, just as Nedkvitne and many other modern historians do. This doesn't seem to be as much the case among archaeologists, who, naturally, are more culturally conscious. This climate will change in the academy as the older generations of historians die off and are replaced by a more diverse and multi-ethnic cohort educated in updated material culture studies. Carlstak (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: For example, anthropologist Mark Q. Sutton considers Greenland a part of North America "because the Inuit that inhabited much of Arctic North America also live in Greenland." And physiographically, Greenland is considered a part of the continent of North America even though it is politically and culturally associated with Europe. Carlstak (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Still, even considering the cultural links between Greenland and the rest of North America, the current phrasing is highly misleading, and I agree with Strebe. The two main issues are 1) the phrase “The Norse had colonized North America" suggests a much more extensive and long-lasting presence than the one in reality and 2) "with some degree of contact" is ambiguous as to whether the contact was with the Greenland colony or than the Vinland colony, which is the one unquestionably part of North America. Regarding the contact between L’Anse aux Meadows and Norway, that seems to veer into WP:SYNTHESIS without a proper source. Eccekevin (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into this in more detail when I have time, but the suggested modifications seem to make sense to me! Same goes for the recent re-overhauling of the article. Good work. UpdateNerd (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, UpdateNerd. The article doesn't say there was contact between L’Anse aux Meadows and Norway, Eccekevin. It explicitly says, "some degree of contact with Europe being maintained by the Greenland community until about 1410." I'm going to revise the content per these comments to correct the ambiguity and clarify its meaning. Carlstak (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I wasn't saying it was OR per se, but that it is indeed ambiguous. Thank you for your work! Eccekevin (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you did an excellent work. I really like the paragraph on discovery vs. encounter, it is definitely what this page needed. In line with this, I removed the "disproved that Columbus was the discoverer" because we should be more nuanced, and I think your paragraph on the word sums it up really well - ultimately the word discovery depends on who is the focus of the term. I also restored some of your other revisions. (Regarding the Vinland-Norway contact, I was again not attacking the wording per se, but the ambiguity that could arise from how it was previously worded, but now it is fixed imo). Eccekevin (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the improvements. Strebe (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Eccekevin. I think your subsequent edits were definitely an improvement, even though you called me "Carlstark" in your summaries;-). I did realize that your previous edits were constructive, not an attack on the wording. I believe the overall results are certainly an improvement, thanks to the input here on the talk page and editorial cooperation—that's the beauty of Wikipedia. I've been reading commentary on the monograph by Mexican Historian and philosopher Edmundo O'Gorman, The Invention of America: An Inquiry Into the Historical Nature of the New World and the Meaning of Its History. I'm collating my notes and will sum them up in a short paragraph. This is an important article, and its discussion of the "Originality of discovery of America" is an important aspect of the historiography of Columbus. O'Gorman is essential to that discussion. Carlstak (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys! Thanks for all the great details and edits on this page! I’m taking a history of the Caribbean class right now, and this is all super helpful! Keep at the great work and stay safe!Amsearss (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Pear-shaped earth

This edit is not sustainable. As already pointed out in the Talk:Figure of the Earth#Columbus and the pear shaped earth conversation, there is no relationship between Columbus’s beliefs (or measurements, if there were any), and the extremely faint pear-shape that can be statistically teased out of the noise. This new edit here makes it sound as if Columbus “discovered” the pear-shape. He did not. Period. Nothing about his instrumentation or observations could possibly have led to the modern understanding of a pear shape. The (modern) description of earth as pear-shaped isn’t even generally accepted by geodesists today; it’s just one way of looking at the measurements. Strebe (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

After confirming that there would be no observable parallax, I agree we shouldn't make it sound like a discovery. The bit about it "in fact" being slightly pear-shaped could be a footnote, however. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

US vs. UK-style spelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponsorship of Catholic Monarchs

El Lead says that the expedition was sponsored by the Catholic Monarchs, and it is true, but it seems that it was based solely on money, and that the expedition was Italian (Genovese) but with financial support from the Kings of Spain.

That is not true, the expedition was Spanish, not only because it was done in the name of Spain (Crown of Castile specifically), but because the ships were Spanish, as well as the crew was mainly Spanish as well. It wasn't just sponsorship. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m fine with the latest wording, “Spanish-based”. Just calling it a “Spanish” expedition seemed off to me, given that the person at the center of the whole enterprise was Genovese. Strebe (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)