Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

"Sexual slavery"

This section should be deleted. The text as it stands is not scholarly, contains WP:SYNTH conclusions, and will mislead readers. There is no justification for calling out some particular kind of slavery: No such distinction existed. A slave was a slave, property to be used as its owner saw fit. Some slave owners used some of their slaves for sexual gratification (as well as myriad other duties), but it does not follow that buying female slaves amounted to buying "sex slaves"; nor does it follow that buying 9- or 10-year old girls implies they must have been used that way. Of course some were. We must presume younger children were used that way as well, so "as young as" is simply wrong. Female slaves were in demand for "female work" of any sorts, and many who sought out 9- or 10-year olds did so not for sex but because these were children who had survived past infant and childhood mortality and were likely to reach adulthood and full productivity. Columbus started up the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but he did not invent "sexual slavery". In short, this section promotes a sensationalized viewpoint for the modern reader while ignoring the realities of slavery. Just get rid of the section. Other articles already exist to deal with the history of slavery and what it meant. Strebe (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Modest subsection (see copy below) seems sufficiently well presented and sourced (with relevant references), as well as sufficiently consistent with the perhaps even more scholarly "Slavery in Haiti" article (esp the "Slavery in Haiti#Spanish Hispaniola (1492–1625)" subsection), to keep imo - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Copied from "Christopher Columbus#Sexual slavery" and/or 20180529 version:

Sexual slavery

On his way back to Spain to stand trial for accusations of abuse of Spaniard colonists, he wrote a letter to the nurse of the son of Ferdinand and Isabella, pleading his case. Among it he wrote:

"Now that so much gold is found, a dispute arises as to which brings more profit, whether to go about robbing or to go to the mines. A hundred castellanos are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand, and for all ages a good price must be paid."

References

• Keep Reliable sources cover this. Vox reads: "Settlers under Columbus sold 9- and 10-year-old girls into sexual slavery" [1] The New York Times says "He sold underage girls into sexual slavery." [2], Bustle (magazine)says " Here's one section in which Columbus, writing to a friend, casually recalls selling pre-teen natives into sexual slavery." and then quotes the bit above that was quoted in the article. [3], New York Daily News "it is time for the broader society to accept the growing awareness that celebrations of Christopher Columbus provide a painfully incomplete historical picture — one that leaves out Columbus' enslavement and massacre of indigenous peoples, promotion of sex slavery of children," [4], Philadelphia Media Network reads "and sold girls as young as 9 as sex slaves." [www.philly.com/philly/news/columbus-philadelphia-statue-italian-confederate-rizzo-debate-monument-20171005.html], etc. Just Google news search and you'll find plenty reliable sources mentioning this fact. I also tried to run the translation of his original words through Google translator and Babblefish translator but some words it didn't know the translation of. Dream Focus 20:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither of these commentaries address any of my points. Strebe (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, they don't at all. These lines are part of the strong anti-Columbus cult thats been brewing these past few decades. Not only was he a genocidal, racist, slaver. But apparently he was a sex dealer as well. Each article is based on the same quote from the same letter.

If you want to try and decipher the original late medieval Spanish, here is the letter. You can also read the entire letter here in English. Nowhere in the entire letter does he mention personally selling sex slaves to anyone. Indeed, the words "slavery", "sex", "prostitute", "whore" and "concubine" don't even appear in it. He mentions the demand for child(presumably) slaves in one passing sentence and references "dealers". He then goes on to complain about the behavior of the Spaniards claiming some don't deserve water in the sight of God. The entire letter is a defense of his rule in the New World, trying to justify his draconian punishments and leadership.

This one sentence has gone through quite the game of telephone. From Columbus mentioning children being sold on his island in passing to admitting to being a human sex trafficker himself. EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the Barwick translation. Thank you. Your comments about it are correct. The people defending these salacious libels in this Wikipedia article have lost all credibility with me. It’s just disgusting how far people are willing to suspend rational thought in their eagerness to believe whatever they find titillating. Strebe (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I believe the Wikipedia community should take a stand and recognize despite these being mainstream media new articles they are clearly lying about what actually happened and what was said. Snopes, usually credible, is openly lying. Even the statement closest to being correct, "Settlers under Columbus sold 9- and 10-year-old girls into sexual slavery" is still wrong. No where in the letter is it mentioned that the children who were sold were being sold explicitly for sexual purposes, just that they were in demand. The people at Vox just read that into it. All we know is that while Columbus was in the Americas, there was human bondage. Blaming him for it is as absurd as blaming the American president for the human trafficking of criminal gangs. EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In Defense of Columbus

I heavily edited and changed up the the modern scholarship section. To say Columbus participated in the sex trade is a huge reach based on just one sentence in a letter he wrote about slave dealing under his rule. I feel the whole section needs a bit more nuance about just how "bad" Columbus supposedly was. The works of Las Casas apparently barely mention Christopher Columbus himself. Its also heavily built around the extremely biased work of Howard Zinn, a far left wing academic who clearly had it in for Western civilization. I used to believe this stuff about just how nasty Columbus was until I watched a video recently that helped explain why Columbus wasn't really a bad guy and put him in his proper historical perspective. The kind of perspective and nuance Zinn was insistent we give to communism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEw8c6TmzGg&t=0m1s

Basically everything Columbus did was par for the course in his day. Slavery, serfdom, violent conquest. None of that sets him apart as particularly bad or unusual compared to anyone else on the planet at the time. Only under the scrutiny of modern morality does he look bad. Throughout America history too little, if any, attention was given to the brutality of the conquest of the New World. Since the 1960's there has been an attempt to rectify this and it has started to go too far. Columbus is one of its victims. One man now blamed for almost everything that went awry. I hope that people here can push back against the overcorrection and try to tease out the biased works and look for the real facts.EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Looks good. Fixed up a couple of dangling issues. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Distance of voyage

This article talks about how Columbus mixed up his units and overestimated the span of Eurasia, and as a result it says that Columbus "estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to Japan to be about... 3,700 km". Can anyone explain how that number was calculated? Because I don't see how the units and Eurasia span mistakes would produce a distance of 3,700 km. That number doesn't have a reference, and I suspect it's wrong. - 68.207.248.247 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

He also under-estimated the size of the world, as I recall. There is considerable documentation that he used Imago Mundi (D'Ailly, 1410), which claimed Asia's land extended considerably over 180 degrees of the sphere. This in contradiction to Ptolomey's assertion that it covered 180 degrees. He also cites Pliny, which gives you an idea of the quality of his sources. For a chapter or so on the subject, I can suggest Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Samuel Eliot Morison, 1942, chapter VII. It doesn't have a direct citation on what you're looking for, just a general feel for the material presented to the Talavera commission. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why his name is hidden?

I think that his original name, Cristoforo Colombo, should appear in the first line of the article, and not only in the note or in the redirect links. It's very weird it's not even mentioned in a "real" part of the article, not even in the incipit. --Francescost (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't his real Spanish name Cristobal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.79 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s in Christopher Columbus#Early life.

I agree that Cristoforo Colombo should be included in the lead sentence, but I'm not sure the best way to include it along with the footnote link to the name in all other languages. Voyaging^talk 01:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"before 31 October 1451"

Columbus was born "before 31 October 1451" ... what exactly does this mean? In 1451, but before 31 October? Or a narrower or wider time frame? What is the significance of 31 October? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It means that he was born on or before 31 October, 1451, but not later. I'd add that it probably should include a citation. For comparison, the Britannica lists his birth date as between 26 August, 1451 and 31 October, 1451. Voyaging^talk 01:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

See earlier discussion here. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

How could "before 31 October 1451" be interpreted as meaning "on 31 October, 1452"?

Wouldn't it mean "on or before 30 October, 1451, but not later"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

"...wan an Italian explorer" ==> change to "Italian explorer of half-Jewish descent" Actually even that half of Columbus which was indeed Italian, was more properly "Genoese", though Genoa was independent city-state in medieval era its population is a native part of modern Italy, just worth mentioning it wasn't quite "Italian" in modern sense (likewise, Mongols weren't Chinese as they're now in former manchuria). ANYWAYS, Chris Columbus was a half-Jew, a dark secret he took into his grave, Even liberals e.g. CNN News reported on it, here (below) is just one sample link out of numerous: https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/20/opinion/garcia-columbus-jewish/index.html

Likewise, Nostradamus wasn't "French". Einstein wasn't "German". And so on. They were jews... Iam not, so I don't "promote myself", just prefer TRUTH, stop hiding these facts, it'll come up to surface sooner or later en masse. Eurometal72 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Refused. WP:FRINGE. No, CNN did not report that Columbus was half-Jewish, they reported some scholars had come up with that. It is not a mainstream view, and it is irrelevant in any case. There have been many discussions on whether to characterize him as Genoese or Italian, the current convention is to say Italian, because Geneose no longer exists as a nationality. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

2.51.167.121 (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2018 (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. Danski454 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Discovered the Americas error

Christopher Columbus did not discover the Americas, 'independently' or otherwise. He made four trips across the Atlantic Ocean from Spain: in 1492, 1493, 1498 and 1502. He was determined to find a direct water route west from Europe to Asia, but he never did. Instead, he accidentally stumbled upon the Americas. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

When one accidently stumbles upon something that normally qualifies as a discovery. The wording is important, I agree, since Columbus and his crew were not the first to discover or stumble upon this land area that was unknown to them. I would say he found and opened a continent previously unknown to him for conquest and the eventual European immigration and settlement under the Roman Church - but that's just me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A more accurate statement would be something like Columbus discovered the viable sailing route to the Americas, a continent which was not then known to Europeans. While what he thought he had discovered was a route to the Far East, he is credited with the opening of the Americas. The imprecise shorthand commonly used in normal language is that he discovered the Americas. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A comment on the nature of discovery, since that seems to have entered the equation. It's quite common, at least in the sciences, to make a discovery and not know what it is. Indeed, if you immediately know what it is, it almost certainly wasn't so much a discovery as it was a confirmation. A notable example recently in the news for other reasons, when Anthony Hewitt and Jocelyn Bell discovered a pulsar, they had no idea what it was. It was clearly notable, but the initial reports used terms like "LGM" (Little Green Men) to denote the inexplicability of what they had found. It was only considerably later that explanations converged on spinning neutron stars.

Another aspect to discovery is that other people need to know about it. An independent discovery which nobody knows about (or gets forgotten) is largely ignored when credit is assigned. This came up quite frequently during the Cold War, where Soviet scientists would respond to discoveries with claims they had seen it before - and the answer was largely "if you didn't tell anyone, it didn't happen". The language of discovery credit largely traces back to where our knowledge of the discovery comes from - even if someone else knew about it too, that doesn't matter if we didn't hear about it.

For the discovery of the Americas, it doesn't matter that Leif Ericson visited Vinland in AD 1000. Beyond fireside tales, the discovery was lost. When Columbus discovered the trade winds route to the Americas, it hit Europe like a thunderbolt. Absolute no question that it was new knowledge, and the results since 1492 show just how dramatic the impact was. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Columbus did not discover the Americas but he did advertise the fact, and this ultimately led to the native people being subjugated or eliminated. B. Fairbairn (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

As best I can tell, this ignores everything written above, as well as documented history. It's simply a repetition of your edit comments over the past week. Are we at the point of needing WP:3O or WP:DRN? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you have independently discovered policies with which to attempt to threaten another contributor. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:3O ("third opinion") and WP:DRN ("dispute resolution noticeboard") are places where contributors can seek help in resolving disputes. I find it very difficult to see how a polite question asking whether these should now be resorted to could reasonably be regarded as an "attempt to threaten another contributor."

For what it's worth, however, since several contributors appear to have participated in this dispute, I expect it would be considered too complex to be suitable for WP:3O.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

From above, I like Columbus discovered the viable sailing route to the Americas, a continent which was not then known to Europeans. While what he thought he had discovered was a route to the Far East, he is credited with the opening of the Americas for conquest and settlement by Europeans. [bolded addition is mine, not to be bold in article]. The imprecise shorthand commonly used in normal language is that he discovered the Americas. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Although we should probably take out that last sentence I put in to explain "discovered America". Tarl N. (discuss) 23:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Being sent to find a route to attack Jerusalem from the east

I just watched a BBC documentary by Simon Sebag Montefiore that said that originally Cristobal was sent by Alfonso and Isabella to try and find a route to attack and conquer Jerusalem from the east though this isn't mentioned at all in the article.

Could anyone find some sources and add this, please?

The documentary is available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06s5x0t/blood-and-gold-the-making-of-spain-with-simon-sebag-montefiore-2-reconquest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.35.79 (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It may not be accurate. I'm certainly surprised to see such a claim, it makes no logical sense - their Catholic Majesties were certainly aware of the huge size of the Asian land mass, so sailing to find an eastern approach is, to say the least, questionable. Sometimes people make things up, this certainly sounds like one of them. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Columbus's obsession with Jerusalem is nothing new. I'm surprised this wiki article doesn't mention Jerusalem at all because it's prominent in his diaries. https://www.jstor.org/stable/598947 --104.229.179.36 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Per Tony Horwitz's A Journey Long and Strange, Columbus promised the Spanish monarchs that his enterprise would produce funds for them to recapture Jerusalem. Also, don't be so sure their Catholic Majesties had a clear idea of the Asian landmass - all they knew from their scholars was that the world was much larger than Columbus was saying, now how much of it was ocean or land, and they clearly believed Columbus over them. Just because they knew there was land there doesn't imply they thought it was as large as it is, and the tendency of early maps of the Americas to assume it's rather thin could support this.Skeletor420 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

We know they had read Marco Polo's accounts. So they had an idea of how much land was east of Jerusalem. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Columbus and discovery

There has been some churn recently, basically removing descriptions of Columbus' actions as discovery. This seems to be the current politically-correct stance, but I don't believe reflects the sources used. Either way, it needs to be discussed here before re-instating. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh this again. Joy. The definition of “discovery” implied by User:Lashask and User:PatGallacher’s edit warring is incoherent. It wasn’t the “native peoples” of America who discovered the Americas. Rather, it was some (unknowable) individual who, presumably (but unknowably) went on to settle in the new lands. But, perhaps, he or she merely explored across the land bridge and informed people back home of the findings, and some of those people who did not discover it pulled up stakes and entered into the new lands. Or perhaps the discoverer did move in. We have no way of knowing. We also have no way of knowing if some individual discovered Maxwell's equations before Maxwell did, or if some Neanderthal discovered that the earth is a sphere.

None of those possible discoveries need to concern us because “discovery” doesn’t mean what User:Lashask and User:PatGallacher seem to think it means. The term is contextual. It has to be contextual. Everything of consequence that humans have discovered may well have already been discovered by some alien civilization. Or by God, if you happen to hew to such beliefs. From the context in which Columbus was working, he discovered the Americas, and this is true even though the Vikings had already discovered the Americas “for” Europe. By conforming to the definition implied by User:Lashask and User:PatGallacher’s preference, there would be no more use for the term “discover”.

When Columbus arrived at San Salvador, his party was discovered by some Taíno individual, and his party discovered the Taíno people. When he arrived at Cuba, his party was again discovered by some Taíno individual. Again. Discovered, despite that some other group of Taíno had already discovered him, and despite that a pile of people back in Europe already knew about that pesky Columbus.

Meanwhile, no one is confused about the fact that Columbus was not the first human to set eyes on the New World. No one. We enlightened folk do not need to protect the wretched ignoramuses who might be misled by talk of Columbus’s discoveries—because, of course, those wretched ignoramuses do not exist. Strebe (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"From here one might send, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as many slaves as could be sold ..."

Please, correct this dishonest part of the article, all the given reference (number 83 as of now, Stone, Edward T. (1975). "Columbus And Genocide". American Heritage. Vol. 26 no. 6. American Heritage Publishing Company. https://www.americanheritage.com/columbus-and-genocide) says is:

"What greater or more supine hard-heartedness and blindness can there be than this?” raged Las Casas in the Historia. And to cap this he says that “in the name of the Holy Trinity he [Columbus] could send all the slaves which could be sold in all the said kingdoms. Many times I believe blindness and corruption infected the Admiral.”

There's no mention of any September 1498 journal entry by Colombus, only this unreferenced citation of a work by Las Casas (who was a very biased writer, by the way). Verujeb (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Verujeb: This University press book by Tzvetan Todorov says "The Spanish sovereigns do not accept this suggestion of Columbus’s they prefer to have vassals, not slaves—subjects capable of paying taxes rather than belonging to a third party; but Columbus nonetheless does not abandon his project, and writes again in September 1498: “From here one might send, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as many slaves as could be sold, as well as a quantity of Brazil [timber]. If the information 1 have is correct, it appears that we could sell four thousand slaves, who might be worth twenty millions and more” ("Letter to the Sovereigns,” September 1498). The displacements might raise some problems at the beginning, but these will quickly be solved. “It is true that many of them die now; but this will not always be so. The Negroes and the Canarians had begun in the same fashion” (ibid.). This is indeed the meaning of his government of the island of Hispaniola,"[5] I'm not sure why you thought it was a journal entry. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Taíno genocide

"According to the historian Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes, by 1548, 56 years after Columbus landed, fewer than 500 Taíno survived on the island" Most sources say the population was between 2000-5000 and Columbus was only governor until 1500 so it seems unfair to give 1548 population numbers in an article about Columbus — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyIsCuddly (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on the actual U.N criteria for genocide it's probably unfair to claim Columbus committed it as governor. He beat up on the naives and the Spanish colonists alike, mostly to maximize output of stuff like gold. Enserfing people isn't genocide unless you can prove he did explicitly because they were Taino. However, most of academia and the media seem to have accepted that line. All you can do is cite people who question that account in addition to the people who claim genocide.

I also think you're right about assigning blame to Columbus regarding the population decline. We should make it more clear that most death was due to things like plague outbreaks that no one had control over and that the 1519 smallpox outbreak occurred after Columbus died in 1506. EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this that Bartolome las Casas, in his "A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies" specifically said that most of the massacres and other atrocities he described did not happen before 1504. "But here is is observable, that the desolation of these Isles and Provinces took beginning since the decease of the most Serene Queen Isabella, about the year 1504, for before that time very few of the Provinces situated in that Island were oppressed or spoiled with unjust Wars, or violated with general devastation as after they were, and most if not all these things were concealed and masked from the Queens knowledge (whom I hope God hath crowned with Eternal Glory) for she was transported with fervent and wonderful zeal, nay, almost Divine desires for the Salvation and preservation of these people, which things so exemplary as these we having seen with our eyes, and felt with our hands, cannot easily be forgotten."

(That's from the translation available on Gutenberg here: )

Now, granted, he may have been being a bit political here, trying to avoid making it seem like he was implicating the monarchy. However, I've read the Adree M. Collard translation of his longer work, "History of the Indies," which by las Casas request was not published after his death, and so was less likely to have those political considerations. While he did describe wrongs against the natives under Columbus (some passages of which, sadly, was not included in this translation...but I could not find another), the impression I got was that during the time under Columbus the atrocities against the natives were restrained, while after he left, there was no holds on the atrocities committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenecho (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Wrong reference to Aragon

The reference to Aragon region in Spain is wrong, as the quoted article is about the Catalan origen of Columbus, and Catalonia has never been part of the Aragon region — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.82.123 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you were specific about the quote you disagree with. If it is this: Some modern historians have argued that he was not from Genoa but, instead, from the Aragon region of Spain or from Portugal, then you are wrong. The quoted article states, A study of the language used in the official records and letters of the Great Navigator apparently proves he hailed from the Kingdom of Aragon in northeastern Spain and his mother tongue was Catalan. Strebe (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019

Please Change the heading of his name Christopher Columbus to Cristoforo Colombo (Eng. Christopher Columbus). This is his actual real name. He never called himself Christopher Columbus. We must educate with the truth about history. His name is Cristoforo Colombo. Thank you for your work. Mistyty (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll add further that such consensus is unlikely. The Italian version of his name is on the (extensive) list of names provided in the "Early life" section. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we use the commonly-known anglicization of his name. If you want to go into his "real" name, that would be Cristoffa Corombo, which is likely the name he used from birth, in his native Ligurian. But that name is so obscure as to be meaningless, other than a piece of nifty trivia. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bartolomé de las Casas does not say Columbus forced natives to give him gold.

In this section,

Slavery and serfdom

According to Spanish colonist and Dominican friar Bartolomé de las Casas's contemporary A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, when slaves held in captivity began to die at high rates, Columbus ordered all natives over the age of thirteen to pay a hawk's bell full of gold powder every three months. Natives who brought this amount to the Spanish were given a copper token to hang around their necks. The Spanish cut off the hands of those without tokens, and left them to bleed to death.[53][144] Thousands of natives committed suicide by poison to escape their persecution.[142]

But nowhere in my research can this be connected to Columbus. Howard Zinn made it all up. Please show me the primary sources if they exist.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.99.158.60 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What part did he make up? That he (or his people) held natives captive? That he demanded gold? That he cut off hands? I certainly read similar commentary (different in detail) in another language half a century ago, so unlikely to have originated specifically with Zinn. Which specific parts do you claim he fabricated? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Estimated trip distance

The current "Geographical considerations" section only discusses the Earth's circumference along the equator rather than Columbus's route, and it doesn't give a source for its Eurasian span estimate, which doesn't match its trip distance. Someone please replace the last three paragraphs of that section with what I've written below. I'd do it myself, but I can't, as the article is protected, and I'm not a registered user. This revised version adds the circumference along his route, adds a second span estimate (with a source) which does match the current trip distance, and adds a trip distance for the first span estimate.

From Pierre d'Ailly's Imago Mundi Columbus learned of Alfraganus's estimate that a degree of latitude (or a degree of longitude along the equator) spanned 562/3 miles, but did not realize that this was expressed in the Arabic mile rather than the shorter Roman mile with which he was familiar (1,480 m). He therefore would've estimated the circumference of the Earth to be about 30,200 km at the equator and 26,200 km at 30 degrees north (around where he was sailing), whereas the correct value is 40,000 km at the equator and 34,700 km at 30 degrees north.

Furthermore, most scholars accepted Ptolemy's estimate that Eurasia spanned 180° longitude, rather than the actual 130° (to the Chinese mainland) or 150° (to Japan at the latitude of Spain). Columbus, for his part, believed an even higher estimate, leaving a smaller percentage for water. Some people have suggested he followed the estimate of Marinus of Tyre, which put the longitudinal span of the Eurasian landmass at 225°. Other people have suggested he followed Esdras's statement that "six parts [of the globe] are habitable and the seventh is covered with water." He also believed that Japan (which he called "Cipangu", following Marco Polo) was much larger, farther to the east from China ("Cathay"), and closer to the equator than it is, and that there were inhabited islands even farther to the east than Japan, including the mythical Antillia, which he thought might lie not much farther to the west than the Azores. In this, he was influenced by the ideas of Florentine astronomer, Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, who corresponded with Columbus in 1474 and who also defended the feasibility of a westward route to Asia.

Columbus therefore would've estimated the distance from the Canary Islands west to Japan to be about 9,800 km or 3,700 km, depending on which estimate he used for Eurasia's longitudinal span. The true figure is now known to be vastly larger: about 20,000 km. No ship in the 15th century could have carried enough food and fresh water for such a long voyage, and the dangers involved in navigating through the uncharted ocean would have been formidable. Most European navigators reasonably concluded that a westward voyage from Europe to Asia was unfeasible. The Catholic Monarchs, however, having completed an expensive war in the Iberian Peninsula, were eager to obtain a competitive edge over other European countries in the quest for trade with the Indies. Columbus's project, though far-fetched, held the promise of such an advantage.

- 72.186.111.112 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done NiciVampireHeart 12:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain

On the first sentence it says "under the auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain" this is confusing and not true. It was just under the auspices of Isabella I of Castile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.225.196 (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? My understanding is that while the funding came from Isabella, the agreement (including resulting titles) was with both monarchs. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

Please change

was an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist

to

was an explorer, navigator, and colonist of Italian origin PolasBear (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. That's wordier with no apparent gain in meaning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There is gain in meaning. He is known by his achievements as explorer, navigator and colonist, and being Italian is just secondary information. He worked as explorer... first for the Portuguese and then for the Spaniards, where he spent all his life until his dead, so emphasizing that he was Italian in the first place can lead to the error that he did it working for Italy, when he really never did it. Therefore it is more correct to indicate that its origin is Italian, in the second place.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolasBear (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 

Disagree that the present wording and the proposed change mean anything different to the average reader. Strebe (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the article is abundantly clear whom he was working for and where he was living, when. Strebe (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Columbus was Genoese, not Italian

Why is he described as Italian? He was from the Republic of Genoa, Italy as a country was not even remotely close to existing. Therefore his nationality is Genoese.

According to Wikipedia's rules, artists such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Titian, etc ... They should be called Italian according to Wikipedia criteria because there is a convention in the History of Renacentist Art to call them Italians. But Christopher Columbus is not a Renaissance artist, therefore it should not be called Italian, that is a historical anachronism, it was not of Italian nationality.

The most correct way is to call him Genoese.

I accept explanations and arguments against and in favor before proceeding to modify it if there is no response. Jacob34T (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Struck comment by sock of banned editor. --IamNotU (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This is how he is most often described by reliable sources, and Wikipedia editors are required to follow sources. Here is a list of supporting sources compiled by another editor. Many are not quality sources, and after ten years there are a lot of dead links there, but Googling reliable sources today returns similar results. Ewulp (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The fallacy here is to talk about “nationality”. The article does not claim that Columbus’s nationality was Italian. It simply describes him as Italian, which was true both then and now. Italy did not exist as a nation then, but it existed as a culture, a region, and a concept. You can see “Italy” on maps of that period and on maps all the way up to the establishment of the nation of Italy. The same is true of “Germany”, for example. The word, the culture, the language, the concept, the designation on maps existed long before the nation. In 1492, if someone was called “Italian” or “German”, the meaning was clear and the utterance would have been perfectly normal. There is no anachronism. Strebe (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That is absolutely confusing. Italy is the name of the Italian Peninsula as well as a the name of a country whose origins are in the 19th century. Columbus was Italian since he was born in a geographical place called Italian peninsula, but, as the same time, in a state called the Republic of Genoa, so he was Genoese.

Nobody doubts that Claudius was a Roman emperor born in Gaul in what is now France. We don't refer to Claudius as French nor as Gallo. The Wikipedia entry says "Claudius was Roman emperor". Similarly, Columbus was Genoese, a citizen of the Republic of Genoa, located in the northwestern Italian peninsula coast, as well as Marco Polo was Venetian, a citizen of the Republic of Venetia, located in the north of Italy.

Therefore, despite being born in that particular geographical region, the Italian peninsula, it is confusing to say that Columbus was Italian. To avoid confusion with his nationality it would be correct to say that Columbus was born in the Italian peninsula, in the Republic of Genoa, but it seems easier to simply say that he was Genoese. However, I find it quite confusing to refer to him as Italian without further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolasBear (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what part of my explanation confused you, but I encourage you to read it again and, if you have some particular rebuttal to some particular part, feel free to explain. Meanwhile, several problems in your analysis:

• Italy is the name of the Italian Peninsula as well as a the name of a country whose origins are in the 19th century. It is also the name of a culture, a family of dialects, and a 2,500 year history, which you seem to resist acknowledging.
• Columbus was… born… in a state called the Republic of Genoa, so he was Genoese. No, we do not know that he was a Genoese citizen; we only know that he was born there. We have no information about his “citizenship”, even if his parentage strongly suggests Genoese.
• We don't refer to Claudius as French nor as Gallo. The Wikipedia entry says "Claudius was Roman emperor". False analogy. George I was a “citizen” of Hanover, but we call him a British king because that is much more important. Given the fluctuating, indistinct boundaries and weak national identities of Columbus's time, historians generally refer to him as Italian. It is not our prerogative to decide otherwise.
• However, I find it quite confusing to refer to him as Italian without further details. The further details are right there, up front, in the info box. In any case, you do not find it confusing because you already know he was born in Genoa.

Strebe (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Another World (not India)

Columbus wrote to the court of Spain that he had found "otro mundo", another world and thus it could not be India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.208.76 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Howard Zinn

While Howard Zinn's classic "A People's History of the United States" is justly famous, the legendary first chapter of the book is pretty much the most overrated. Although Mary Grabar's "Debunking Howard Zinn" is politically suspect, it makes a point that I have noticed: the stuff about Columbus reads pretty much like a book report on Hans Koning's "Columbus: His Enterprise". Now Koning's book is, in my opinion, the best-written book on Columbus, Koning, like Irving and Morrison before him, has some errors. The most notable one is in "People's History". I cannot find any corroboration to the claim that the punishment for the tribute was that the hand to be cut off. This Reddit thread explains it in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MROATL (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

change "Columbus's" to "Columbus'" he did not discover the world. under the picture of place names 51.174.12.129 (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, per MOS:POSS. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nautical miles, not miles

In 'Quest for financial support for a voyage' it says: «It was their considered opinion that Columbus's estimation of a travel distance of 2,400 miles (3,860 km) was, in fact, far too low.» The reference is Samuel Morison's book "Admiral of the Ocean Sea". However, if you look at page 68 of that book, you'll see that Morison is writing about nautical miles, not miles. What says in the article is therefore incorrect.

Page 68 of Morison's book can be seen on Amazon's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasberg (talk • contribs) 16:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A 4th ship?

Sometime in the mid or late 1970s, I ran across a newspaper article (probably in one of the California newspapers- likely SF Chronicle or LA Times) that there was evidence that there was a fourth ship on Columbus' 1st voyage. I lost my newspaper files from the time years ago, so I can't re-access it. Does anyone have further information on this claim? [I'm leaning towards the idea that if there was a 4th ship, it probably either a pilot ship or perhaps one along for the Canaries portion of the voyage (or perhaps joined the others in the Azores).] CFLeon (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

Christopher Columbus never went to the U.S.A. and he was written in history in a completely different way, Washington Irving made a book about nonsense. I request you to re-write about his true life. Thedissprover (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done – Thjarkur (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Cristobal Colon era genoves ,Italia no existía como pais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.7.77 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Columbus/Colombo

Is there any discourse on Wikipedia about the naming of these pages with anglicized names? (Like Christopher Columbus vs. Cristoforo Colombo, or John Cabot vs. Giovanni Caboto.) It just seems perverse to do that, rather than redirecting from the anglicized version, given that English Wikipedia doesn't seem to do that for any names other than explorers. I'm guessing I'm not the first person to bring this up though.

Emptybathtub (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

At least for Columbus, there is no obvious other name to use. There are at least six forms used in his lifetime (in Ligurian, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Latin and English). The one which would normally receive precedence, his birth name in Ligurian (Cristoffa Corombo), is the least recognizable. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we go by the name most used in English publications. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Why would the English Wikipedia use the non-English version? Virtually every language does this. Look at any historical monarch for a start and you'll find we don't use the native name. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We do in some cases. E.g., Hernán Cortés rather than Hernan Cortez. WP:COMMONNAME specifies to use the most commonly used name, but when the spelling is close enough to be recognizable, we tend to use the native spelling. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Language Accuracy re: "discovery" of Americas

I'm not an experienced editor so thanks for your attention to the topic itself and not issues with my lack of familiarity with the style guide. I also don't know how to link to the edits I'm referring to but they're from 19:01, 16 February 2019 under my username. --- I'm a frequent reader of Wikipedia but rarely an editor. I was reading this page and was really surprised to see multiple references to Columbus's "discovery" of the Americas. I made a few edits to make the language more neutral. All the edits were immediately reverted (by a user who is no longer on Wikipedia), giving the reason that, "All the edits are of the form "find a way to avoid saying discovery"". Um, yes. That's the point.

I understand that it's a politically charged subject, but political beliefs aside, it is simply factually inaccurate to refer to Colombus discovering America.

I gather from the comments that this has been previously discussed and that editors are very against the removal of the word discovery. But even if you don't consider it necessary to remove "discovery" terminology, I see no reason why it should be actively enforced that edits to include other, equally accurate or more neutral language be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashask (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The reversion User:Lashask refers to is this, almost exactly a year ago. The editor who is no longer on Wikipedia refers to me. I'm retired, in the sense that I have for the moment given up active maintenance (and my edits have dropped by an order of magnitude), but I'm not actually gone, yet. Looking back at the edits, I still find they reflect POV-pushing (that is, violate WP:NPOV). I'll respond to any comments here. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully I've fixed the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I find the drive to remove "discovery" as POV-pushing. There is no question that at the time (and until very recently), his achievements were considered discoveries. A current search of the article (after today's changes) now uses the term only in the titles of cited references. The notable presence of the term in the title of several different cited references, combined with a notable absence in the article itself indicates we aren't following our cited references. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Italian

Really was an Italian? There are not conclusive reports telling us if she was from Catalonia, Genoa, ...? One thing is true is not Italian, becausde Italia was formed in the XVIII century, not in Columbus time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.170.246 (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

change tenant to tenet 93.35.160.107 (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Next time, please cite any reliable sources and provide an explanation for your request. However, this request was trivial enough for that. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 04:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would that need references or any more explanation than was given? Don’t we want to encourage people to be helpful? Thanks for servicing the request, and thanks to the IP editor for noticing the embarrassing solecism and acting on it. Strebe (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Use of "discovery" in Christopher Columbus

There is no consensus in this RfC owing to low participation. A new RfC that discusses specific proposed changes to the article such as which sentences should be changed to use "discovery" may achieve more participation.

Cunard (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently, the Christopher Columbus page completely eschews the use of the word "discovery". This has gone back and forth over the years, I think it's time to get a wider commentary on this. The cited references pretty much all use the word, and indeed, several of them have the word in the title of the work. Refusing to use the word seems to be a mixture of WP:RECENTISM (the fashion for excising "discovery" is fairly recent) and WP:CENSOR ("discovery" as a dirty word). Either way, it means we're going out of our way to not follow our cited sources.

I understand the changes in current fashion, but I think Wikipedia is ill-served by bending to them. It is beyond question that when Columbus made his initial voyages, they were discoveries that hit both sides of the Atlantic like a thunderbolt. We can quibble over the terminology (perhaps say "discovery of the route" or "discovery from the point of view of both Americans and Eurasians"), but only with caution. It would be easy to get so tied up in precision as to make the article unreadable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we should be bending over backwards to avoid the term, but I am also not sure it is essential to use it. Could you provide an instance in the current text where you think it would be appropriate to use the word "discovery"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought at first that discovery of the route would be OK, but one does not really "discover" a route. One uses a route for the first time for example. Like, if I use an underground tunnel to the market, and nobody else has ever done that, did I discover the route? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, you did, if no one was previously aware that you could travel to the market through the underground tunnel. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was not Italian.

• Italia didn't existed back then
• He renounced to the Genovese nationality
• He was Castilian.
• He writed in spanish always (even to his genovese family).
• He served the Hispanic Crown. (Important data that isn't there).
• Genova and Portugal didn't finance him.
• The famous expedition was paid by the Hispanic Kings.

Source: http://biblioteca.cchs.csic.es/digitalizacion_tnt/pdfs/P_000789876_000789876000001_V00.pdf

I don't think you should do that like in the "Columbus day" where there are everywhere flags of Italy.

--ManjuEspaña (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

As there is no consensus agreeing that the first sentence should state Columbus was "Italian" (on its face problematic, as Italy was only a region then, not a country, kingdom, or nationality), I changed it based on the model used in another contentious bio from the same era - Nicolaus Copernicus. It now states Columbus was a Renaissance-era explorer. I'm willing to discuss it further. I'm personally of the opinion that he was a citizen of Genoa, but I am aware that there are also strong arguments that would support the Castilian adjective. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually years of longstanding usage is consensus. This has been discussed many times in the past per the archives. If you want to change it then start and Rfc on this talk page and change people's minds. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Italy wasn’t “only” a region. It was an identity. The cited model of Copernicus is not apt here. Many (most? all?) Renaissance-era Italian figures are introduced as “Italian” on their pages. Strebe (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Since I don't believe there is much controversy as to the fact of Columbus's family, and he himself, as being originally from Genoa, I'd like to hear the main argument(s?) for saying he was "Italian" instead of just saying he was "Genoese." I.e., what are the counterargument(s?) for using the general/cultural adjective "Genoese" instead of "Italian." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically, the only two questions that concern us here are, (1) What do the sources say? and (2) What are Wikipedia’s conventions? Both of those amount to “Italian” when introducing the figure to the reading audience. I have not canvassed all Wikipedia articles on Italian figures from… when? to the founding of the Italian Republic, but every one of the eight articles I did look at said “Italian”. And in discussions in this Talk page archive, impressively long lists of sources were given that all say “Italian”. I’m not sure we are at liberty to discuss the matter abstractly; that’s not what Talk pages are supposed to be for. Strebe (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

All sources used by the WP page, as far as I was able to check, do state that Columbus was born to a family of citizens of the Republic of Genoa (an independent city state until much later; at least until the 18th century, I believe). This is basically an established fact as far as Wikipedia is concerned. That is why I started my suggestion beyond already beyond this point. And that is why the opening sentence does currently say "Italian," which is not incorrect per se as cultural regional adjective. I was just suggesting that using the narrower cultural adjective "Genoese" (instead of the wider "Italian" once currently used) might be more effective in terms of this recurring identity discussions on this page. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The article already discusses Columbus’s roots in Genoa in depth; it doesn’t obscure that or promote other hypotheses about his origins, so I’m not sure why you would frame your question around the factual nature of Columbus’s family’s citizenship. The question is over the introductory sentence. The large list of sources generally introduce him as “Italian”. Wikipedia pages of other Italian luminaries introduce them as “Italian”. I can speculate (but probably shouldn’t) that the sources and other Wikipedia articles do that because introductions are more about generalities, and because generalities are easier to digest when a casual reader doesn’t need to know more. I read your inquiry as, “If Columbus’s origins aren’t in (credible) question, then why shouldn’t we just introduce him as ‘Genoese’ in order to avoid controversy here on the Talk page?” My response is that encyclopedias are not written to avoid pedantic arguments on Talk pages; they are written in the service of the reader’s understanding. We can suppose that reliable sources have found by experience that “Genoese” is less understandable than “Italian”. Meanwhile standard editorial practice for encyclopedias is to be more understandable than pedantic, especially in introductions. Details follow in the body of the article. Strebe (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

My inquiry about the possibility of introducing him as "Genoese" as opposed to "Italian" was first motivated by the purpose of being more focused and precise in the cultural regional adjectives we use to first introduce such a momentous and controversial historical figure as Columbus. I am not quibbling at all at the fact that the cultural adjective "Genoese" is a just a narrower and more defined subset of wider and less specific, i.e. more generic cultural adjective "Italian." In addition to being more focused and specific, it might also have the advantage of being less susceptible to the kind of more modern political objections such as the one that has now reopened the current discussion. But it is just a simple inquiry and/or suggestion of a possibility, and your answers give me the feeling you don't seem to have much patience at the moment for such "philosophical" discussions. So be it then, as far as I am concerned at this point. Thanks a lot for your answers. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain this? less susceptible to the kind of more modern political objections such as the one that has now reopened the current discussion. I’m not seeing anything obviously “modern” in the objections tendered in any of the recent postings, so I’m still confused about your argument. Strebe (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to this statement, on the opening line of this section:

 "Italian" (on its face problematic, as Italy was only a region then, not a country, kingdom, or nationality),

The nationality issue referred to is a "more modern political concept," as referring to Columbus, since the political allegiance at his time was to kings and kingdoms, not to nations in a more modern political sense. But you have already said that as far a you are concerned, the purpose of an encyclopedia entry in not "to avoid controversy" or something to that effect. So that makes my suggestion of possibly using a narrower and more focused cultural regional adjective such as "Genoese" for Columbus rather useless, I guess. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s not that I view your suggestion as “useless”; it’s that I don’t understand how your observation differs from the the history of that suggestion as it recurs on this Talk page. The specificity of Genoese would be fine if the typical reader understood what that meant. I’m not saying the typical reader doesn’t; I don’t pretend to be in a position to know. What I am in a position to know is that the sources introduce Columbus as Italian pretty consistently, and the many Wikipedia articles about other Renaissance Italians do the same. I can conjecture that they do this because experts’ experience is that “Genoese” (or Florentine or Venetian or whatever) isn’t sufficiently meaningful to a broad audience. And therefore, whether or not it causes flare-ups on Talk pages from people who seem to believe “Italian” is a modern construction, the correct editorial choice seems, to me, to be to leave it as it is. And, given Wikipedia policy, we must leave it as it is unless someone can convince the rest that we have misinterpreted the sources and we must rehash this battle out across all the pages of Italian luminaries. Strebe (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with everything you say above. I'd be willing to look at the 8 cases you say you have researched, and see if I'd still may have an argument after that. The only point where I may differ from you is on the uniqueness of the Columbus case, vis-a-vis all these other cases you are basing your argument on. But after comparing the cases I may not have an argument anymore, after all. I'll let you know. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci, House of Medici, Sandro Botticelli, Michelangelo, Niccolò Machiavelli, Vincenzo Coronelli, Giovanni Sante Gaspero Santini, Luigi Galvani, Alessandro Volta, Caravaggio were all the names off the top of my head. Strebe (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

User: Strebe. Nice list. I took the 4 very famous Italians from the Renaissance period in your list, and put them in chronological order of the year of birth. The other 5 are later, past the Renaissance period, and about later periods the "national" controversies are less prominent. This is what I came up with:

• Botticelli [1445] ... was an Italian painter of the Early Renaissance. He belonged to the Florentine School
• Leonardo da Vinci [1452] ... was an Italian polymath of the Renaissance
• Machiavelli [1469] ... was an Italian Renaissance diplomat, philosopher and writer,
• Michelangelo [1475] ... was an Italian sculptor, painter, architect and poet of the High Renaissance born in the Republic of Florence

Columbus [1451] would be the second on the list above, and his introduction currently says:

• Columbus ... was an Italian explorer and colonizer

My conclusion is: I think you are correct, the "Italian" has to remain as is. The Genoa part is already clearly and sufficiently explained, in my view, in the second paragraph. My only suggestion would be to add the Renaissance qualifier in his case also, as follows:

• Columbus ... was an Italian Renaissance explorer and colonizer

Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 04:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Warshy: Thanks for the diligence. Strebe (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, by the way, that “nationality” is a modern political concept. You can see on the Origin theories of Christopher Columbus#Other information section a quote by Simon Grynaeus (1532): “Christophorus natione Italicus, patria Genuensis, gente Columba.” This quote, calling Columbus an “Italian national native to Genoa”, actually originated by or before 1525, as seen on the verso of Lorenz Fries’s “Admiral Map”, a close copy of Waldseemüller’s Admiral’s Map. There are many contemporaneous descriptions of Columbus as an Italian. We learn from this that people of the era did, in fact, consider Italy to a “nation”, not just a region or a culture. I agree that the meaning of “nation” has strengthened in the meantime, but my point to future interlocutors is that we shouldn’t be shy about calling Columbus “Italian” if people of the time weren’t. Strebe (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. I find it very useful and interesting. I find the use of the expression patria Genuensis, meaning "of the Genoese motherland" extremely interesting. But also, please note that the use of the traditional word "nation" is rather different than the post-industrial revolution use of the modern concept of "nationality." I am also referring to the historical rise in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries of the ideologies of nationalism, and of their use in the social conduct of internal politics in nation-states, and in the conduct of geo-political struggles in those centuries. The modern ideas of nationality and nationalism are also usually behind the periodical revivals of debates around the "national identity" of central historical figures such as Columbus. But I had already agreed to the current use of the adjective "Italian" in the opening sentence here. My only suggestion was to add the cultural and historical qualifier of "Renaissance" to the adjective, as in "an Italian Renaissance explorer and colonizer." I still think that would be a good idea, and I started collecting reliable secondary sources that do emphasize the Renaissance connection for Columbus. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course Columbus was Italian, like me—and we are very proud of him. ‘Italian’ actually does not refer to the country citizens only, but also, especially, to the ethnical group we form. The Italian polity had not yet been formed at that time, true, but our People actually traces back its origins more than two millenia ago, when ‘Italia’ was ruled in cohesion for centuries. Italians shared those days, like now, the same race, the same religion, the same history, the same culture, and similar languages (as well as latin, obviously). I don't think Italy was "only a region then, not a country, kingdom, or nationality"—Italy indeed was a nation, called homeland by millions; it was the heart of our character and the source of our spirit. Being Italian is way more than possessing citizenship, it's cherishing the land of our fathers, from whom we have taken our identity; like Columbus, with his family and his blood. 1860 was certainly not the first time Italy was unified, but just the most recent—it's not like the U.S. which, once populated by migrants with little relation among each other, was created unboundedly: our ancestors have populated this land for hundreds of generations, no man has ever been credited for having created or founded Italy, whose essence I think goes beyond just the simple existence of a common government, and reaches the embrace of the extraordinarily various natures and peculiarities on which our People has always stood upon. --Foghe (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

He was not Italian. A man of his rank would never receive an audience with a Queen. Not enough time for him to gain knowledge to sail around, then decide to sail in search for the route to Asia. 2601:184:0:3940:CD2E:CE9D:8171:99CC (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2020 (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. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 10:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

Columbus was not Italian. Genoa was an independent republic 69.113.54.33 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This was already discussed multiple times on this talk page and reliable sources seem to prefer the term "Italian"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Shocking to remove Columbus' name in his native language; Nationality issue

I can't believe that from this morning editors have removed Columbus' name rendered as his parents named him in primary and native language Ligurian, and to a lesser extent that you've removed his name rendered in the Catalan language which he preferred for correspondence with his brother as an adult. Since when is it not relevant what a famous person's birth name was in his native language? You've compounded the wrongness of this by rendering his name in a modern Italian which he would not have spoken, based as it was in the higher class dialect of a rival city-state on the Italian peninsula. This seems an ahistorical inclusion aimed at bolstering the non-supportable contention that Columbus was in some way "Italian" by any modern political or ethno-linguistic contruct.

It's every bit a "fringe" to render Columbus as "Italian" as to label him Portuguese. I would refer you to Wikipedia itself to note that Ligurian is a distinct Romance language.

The Italian government for practical purposes of blood right claims to citizenship declares that there were no Italian citizens prior to the 1861 Kingdom of Italy unification. Even at that, an ancestor has to have been living within bounds of the Italian state as it existed during their lifetime and not post facto to qualify as an Italian. Much of the Republic of Genoa is now parts of two other countries, including Columbus' mother's birthplace of Corsica a trait she shares with Napoleon), now part of France.

You have to restore Columbus' Ligurian name, not doing so is absurd. What's of questionable use is the modern Italian rendering, which Columbus may never have heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRandolphPhila (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Which edit do you refer to? Ligurian was not removed. Portuguese and Catalan were removed. Columbus’s Ligurian orthography is given in the Early Life section. As for the matter of “Italian”, that has been dealt with ad nauseam on this Talk page, including in immediately preceding sections. You don’t seem to have brought anything new to the discussion; you seem to have simply ignored what has already been said about it. It is hard to see the relevance of parts of the Republic of Genoa that Columbus did not hail from being missing from modern Italy. Strebe (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbus' name was given him in Lingurian; it is not his Ligurian name, it's his name. What needs justification is why a modern Italian orthography of his name appears at the top of the page when this is not a language that his family spoke or wrote. Nowhere else do I see any discussion of that fact that the Italian government for practical reasons has decided that no one prior to 1861 is an Italian citizen, dating from the Kingdom (not Republic) of Italy. It is relevant that much of the Republic of Genoa is not and never has been "Italy" including Columbus' mother's birthplace Corsica. I would ask that we consider that the Republic of San Marino and Republic of Genoa were contemporaries and both independent countries. San Marino still is and its population actually does speak Italian, but we do not refer to them as "Italian" as this is not their sociopolitical status. CRandolphPhila (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your point concerning “Italian” as an adjective for the man is not new. It has been addressed (repeatedly); not surprisingly, you are not the first person to have come along who knows Italy didn’t exist as a polity at the time; not the first person to point this out as if it is news; and not the first person to ignore the repeated conversations around this. The Italian government’s decision about citizenship prior to 1861 is no more relevant than the other objections of the same ilk: nowhere does the article claim that Columbus was an Italian citizen. I don’t know what you mean by “sociopolitical status”. Socially, yes, the people of San Marino are Italian. Politically, no. I don’t see the relevance. Columbus’s Genoese heritage and apparent citizenship are all explained in detail in the article.

Your point about his Ligurian name not appearing in the lead paragraph is fine. (Yes, it is his Ligurian name, just as I have an English name, which is the one I was given, and other names when I go to certain other countries.) I don’t know why his Ligurian name, specifically, got removed. (That happened long ago, not recently, contrary to your claim). I support putting it back in. Strebe (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

San Marino citizens are not Italian. They have citizenship in another country, one which is not an EU member. The founder of the country is from present-day Croatia and many of the residents speak the non-Italian Romance language Romagnol. All of this as per Wikipedia itself, which has a section on the San Marino page as well as its own article on Sammarinese cuisine which notes it is "similar to Italian." Similarly most of Columbus' Republic of Genoa was not linguistically, politically nor otherwise Italian and most of its territory is not today part of modern Italy.CRandolphPhila (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think legends about the founder of San Marino have the faintest relevance to an article about Christopher Columbus. You continue to ignore the reasons that have been given many times for why Columbus is introduced as “Italian”. You won’t get a consensus that way. Strebe (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Was not Italian, again.

-Italy didn't existed back then -The concept of "nationality" didn't existed back then, you served a king and you were called after the title of the noble. For example if you served the English Crown you were English, so in the moment he served the Hispanic Crown and entered a Spanish boat, he was Spanish. -His expeditions were paid by the Spanish. -He died in Spain and writed with his brother in catalan or spanish. -After the expedition he was named "Virrey" of the Indias, so he was performing a job for the Spanish Crown (again, the concept of nationality didn't existed, but the concept of serving a monarch or a republic).

Hope this time I don't get ignored, trueness is beyond patriotism in an enciclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManjuEspaña (talk • contribs) 11:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your points have been addressed many times. Strebe (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding relevance to George Floyd Protests in intro section

I propose the following addendum to the last intro paragraph, given the historical moment we're currently experiencing:

Columbus's legacy continues to be debated. He was widely venerated in the centuries after his death, but public perceptions have changed as recent scholars have given greater attention to negative aspects of his life, such as his enslavement of the indigenous population in his quest for gold and his brutal subjugation of the Taíno people, leading to their near-extinction, as well as allegations of tyranny towards Spanish colonists. Many landmarks and institutions in the Western Hemisphere bear his name, including the country of Colombia and the name Columbia, which is used as a personification for the United States, and appears in many place names there. A number of monuments and memorials in Columbus' likeness were removed during the protests that followed the May 2020 killing of George Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdt (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM Tarl N. (discuss) 16:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the standard waiting period for the recent to become historical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdt‎ (talk • contribs) 17:24 19 June 2020 (UTC)

When we can see the forest rather than the trees. That there were some Columbus statues removed among scores of other historical figures, mostly involving the confederacy, does not demand a change to the lede of an article about events 500 years ago. An example of what might qualify, for example, if the District of Columbia were to be renamed, that could suggest a brief mention in the legacy section, but even that would not belong in the lede. Remember, this article is history, not news. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede ends with Columbus' legacy. It bears mentioning that in the current moment the legacy of this individual is being aggressively reassessed. At what point is this discussion less about the historicity of the current moment and more about gatekeeping? To have a neutral perspective is to allow multiple interpretations of what is historical. If the issue is the recency of the events, then when, in your opinion, is it acceptable to update the page accordingly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdt (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbus' legacy has been under reassessment since at least the 1970s (that's how far back my memories of it go). That paragraph (saying "recent scholars" without a date) needs re-working, but for an article about events 500 years ago, something ongoing for at least 50 years isn't entirely out of place. Needing to add something to the lede NOW because of events last week, mostly unrelated to Columbus, would be out of place. There isn't a hard and fast answer, but "last week" very much qualifies as WP:RECENTISM. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tarl N.’s comments, in detail, and do not agree that the counter arguments successfully counter. As editors, it is not our job to interpret ongoing events or their importance. When reliable sources decide that Columbus’s legacy was significantly influenced by current events, we would be obliged to make the article accord with those sources. Strebe (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Konig and Zinn on the Taino punishment

The Konig & Zinn claims about cutting off the hands of the Taino if they did not have the token that showed that they had collected enough gold appear to be fabrications. The source for the story seems to be a mishmash of Bartolomé de las Casas and Friar Antonio de Montesinos, but the context has been twisted and exaggerated. De las Casas wrote about Spanish depravities in Cuba, after Columbus’s death, and not concerning gold-seeking or tokens thereof. He does write about the brutal labor in the gold mines (men only), but nowhere is there anything about punishments for insufficient extraction or about Columbus at all. It’s easy enough to find reliable translations for de las Casas, but my question here is, are there scholars who refute Zinn on this matter specifically? Strebe (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It is for all...

If you can edit this page, please delete the <wiki>[[]]</wiki> on the words that has red fonts on it? It is really annoy me. PythonYouAndScratchDude (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done COuld you be more specific? I couldn't find what you are referring to. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of being governor missing from most relevant part of narrative in the voyages.

Where it talks about his voyages, it says his second voyage was meant to establish colonies, but the only place it mentions he made one specifies that it was short lived, then the first part where it mentions him being governor of a colony was after he returned to Hispanolia after going to the mainland in his third voyage he found people complaining about and rebelling against his rule. However, I can't find any mention before that point in the article, other than in the header section, of anything he had done as governor other than establish a settlement, with it skipping from him saying he established the short lived La Isabella settlement in the end of the "second voyage" section, to talking about him departing from Spain for his third voyage, with the next point of him being in the vicinity of any settlement they are already in rebellion to him. I know there is a lot of controversy about everything related to his actions in this time period, but this article shouldn't just leave that entire time period entirely skipped and not mentioned in this section of the article, with it only discussed in the latter sections after it finishes recounting his voyages.

Really, this article needs somewhere in it a more complete, if not excessively detailed, chronology of his primary actions in America in consistent chronological order, listing at least where he went and how long he spent there (especially when he stayed somewhere for a long time), and significant things he did there, such as establishing or governing colonies or any fighting or violence that took place there.--108.86.123.222 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Category

I propose including the Category: Genocide Perpetrators. This is already discussed and established in the article and is generally the consensus view today, so this is not a case of breaking any neutrality. In fact, in order to present a truly neutral POV, both the positive ("Navigator/Explorer") and negative ("Genocide Perpetrator") should be included. Otherwise this article does seem biased against those historical facts already discussed and established in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pommelhorse (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbus did nasty things (after all, he was part of a nasty era), and I understand it is now fashionable to focus on the negatives of past figures. But calling him a genocide perpetrator rather overstates the case. He did not himself wipe out the Taino. He did enable others to so do. But more importantly, genocide usually encompasses the goal of wiping out a population. I have not seen anything suggested that Columbus intended to exterminate the native populations he ran into. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps linking to the List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests early in this article would better way to approach the ongoing reassessment of past figures during this historical moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdt (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Christopher Columbus. I'm not seeing the relevance. The removal of monuments is a current event which is not specific to Columbus. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There are at least 15 Christopher Columbus statues or monuments that have been toppled by protesters or removed by city ordinances in that list. The event is relevant to the legacy of Columbus, which continues to be interpreted and assessed to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burdt (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no historical consensus on the fact he prepetrated genocide. Some historians have accused him of violence towards natives, but it's a leap to 'genocide'Eccekevin (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Columbus task was to sail—he discovered the continent, didn't work to set up a system of genocide for killing people. Colonization in America was not established (with so much money spent) for the puropose of eliminating indians, let alone with Columbus at its head; genocide implies a committed intention to systematically act towards the goal of exterminating a race or a people, concept that was absolutely absent in Columbus. Historical records show mixed and insufficient material about the happenings of the time, and historians are unsure wheater it can be determined with certainty which role, if any, did Columbus play in the treatment of the local tribes.
Moreover, as a proud Italian, I feel very annoyed and distraught to see clumsy attempts to link the alleged racial conflict, and Floyd and the ensuing events to the person of Columbus and his achievements. The continuous questioning of his honor and the rude treatment he is receiving are ungrateful to us all; I personally have turned very sad and disappointed to see the contempt with which his image and memory are being treated. The rhetoric made against him is not only unfruitful and divisive, but is a heavy approximation and misunderstanding of his contribution to history; the lack of respect experienced in this period hurted all of us in Italy—an aggressive disdain for our People and our champion. --Foghe (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for an editor to remove one of the citations (Colombus apologists are defaming Bobadilla)

One of the citations (citation 102 as of now) uses this article as a source https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/letters/2014/10/13/Columbus-revisionists-are-misinformed/stories/201410130028

It's a brief article that reads more like an opinion article defaming Bobadilla's accounts. I think it's safe to remove the source.

I've also noticed that there have been many Colombus apologists who argue that his accusations of Tyranny and Brutality have been over-exaggerated. While I believe that those arguments can be made, they're doing so by trying to defame Bobadilla's account with questionable citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronnerjoji (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source. Done. Strebe (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

How can an opinion - letter to the editor - be credible?

In "Criticism and defense in modern scholarship" The assertion of tribute demanded by Columbus is supported by footnote 143 which is an opinion written in a letter to the editor. That letter to the editor does not at all cite where this info comes from. A better source should be found if this is not part of The Black Legend misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murphoid (talk • contribs) 10:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. The claim was also simply out of context. Strebe (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Master" navigator

Why has this article described Columbus as a "Master" navigator? Is there any technical definition for this? There wasn't any wikilink. Are there qualifications here? Does this article even describe Columbus's navigation skills? Are there better reliable sources than WP:BRITANNICA? ɱ (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

For context, if we are to call someone a "master architect" or "master sommelier" in a biography here, we'd expect to include why they are considered that, who considers them that, and what qualifications they have for it. Was Columbus even a navigator or did he just captain the ships/crews? I also think "master architect" or "master navigator" is a WP:PEACOCK term, just as we describe a famous architect's accomplishments instead of saying they're a "great/successful/renowned" architect. ɱ (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t need a “technical definition”. You seem to be misconstruing the very meaning of “information”. Plenty of good sources refer to Columbus as a “master navigator”. That means he was not a dilettante, and amateur, a novice, or a journeyman. It does not matter that it is “vague”; it is not so vague as to lack meaning. It is also not peacocking; it is a statement of skill level, even if not precise according to a modern certification authority—which, of course, did not exist. Sources far more reliable than you say “master navigator”, so how about you let it be “master navigator” so that readers have some information, as opposed to none? Strebe (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Where are all these sources you claim? Your arguments are moot, as the article lede is supposed to summarize the body of the article. Where does it state he even was a navigator, nonetheless a master? This is an incredible peacock term, and your lack of neutrality is showing. ɱ (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Read Navigator. Does that definition as the actual navigation expert working for a ship's captain apply? No, because Columbus was the captain, of multiple ships even. Note also that 'master chef' or 'master architect' is not used for notable chefs or architects. Even the most renowned, like IM Pei or Frank Lloyd Wright, do not use this classic WP:Peacock term or anything like it. ɱ (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if others can weigh in, because you clearly won't take anything but calling him an expert in navigation based on the mediocre source of WP:BRITANNICA, with literally no supporting evidence. ɱ (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion does not trump the opinion of even one reliable source. The Wikipedia guidelines for using Encyclopædia Britannica do not call it unreliable or “mediocre” — your own libelous words. They say that some editors prefer secondary sources over tertiary (which I agree with, but that does not make E.B. unreliable), but this is not a question of secondary in conflict with tertiary; E.B. is simply a convenient and accessible source that is reliable. The WP caution applies to public-sourced material, which this article is not; it was written by a professor of history. Wikipedia does not trust your opinion about this more than a published, scholarly source. That’s not how it works. You want more references?

This study has presented viable evidence from reliable sources that Columbus was one of the most skilled and experienced of the respected Genoese captains and navigators in Europe during his lifetime.

Furtheremore, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of both “master” and “navigator”.

1. The Navigator article is about the modern notion of navigator, and specifically about the position of the modern navigator. It is not about the broader meaning, and it is not about the 15th century notion. 2. It is possible for a person to both captain and navigate a ship. 3. Columbus is known not to have employed a navigator on his voyages; he was the navigator. 4. Columbus was navigating before he ever captained any ships. Why you imagine modern chefs or architects have anything to do with this conversation is beyond me, but the term “master” as a position has existed ever since the practice of apprenticeships (please read that article) and guilds began, and probably long before. Because we don’t know much about his early life, I don’t think we know (but I am not a historian) that he achieved master status in a formal apprenticeship progression. What we do know is that his skills in dead-reckoning were among the best, and therefore he was peer to the masters of his time—characterized as “master” by an actual scholar of history for a reputable publication.

You make a good point about the article not exploring this matter further, but that suggests improving the article rather than deleting cited stuff you don’t like until the perfect article appears whole-cloth out of nowhere. Strebe (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Ɱ is now in violation of WP:3RR. Strebe (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec), not really, I've made different adjustments, but so what? You and your friend together are too - what the heck is wrong with talking here? WP:OWN, WP:OWN, WP:OWN

You're making a ton of presumptions here. I removed it pending further discussion. Regardless of what you think "master" is a classic WP:PEACOCK term, not used for any other prominent person, unless like at WP:PEACOCK, it states it as the opinion of a notable biographer, etc., or unless it's a technical term, like Master Sommelier is a certification. If you can find that Columbus became a 'master' through apprenticeship, that would work. I didn't fully doubt the veracity of the information, but it's necessary for the lede to reflect the body of the article, and for us not to simply claim he's an expert with no evidence or description why whatsoever.

As for Douglas T. Peck, this research paper is not an amazing source. It's one author's opinion; it even states that he "disagrees with his colleagues in the USA who present the "politically correct" view", showing his bias and that this is a minority, fringe viewpoint. ɱ (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your ideas fall apart with even the introduction: "Current biographers and historians differ widely over Columbus' expertise and experience in seafaring and navigation." So why the heck are you trying to call him a master navigator when the source you give me seems to show significant controversy over whether he knew anything at all about it? ɱ (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Peck's summary of literature differences on Columbus's seafaring expertise led me to create a short section on it in the article. Feel free to expand. ɱ (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Considering the extreme controversy, even if Peck came to the conclusion at the end that the evidence convinces him, the sources vary enough that we cannot state in the lede (as truth) a claim that is so heavily debated by historians and biographers. ɱ (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The terms of WP:3RR are inarguable: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. This characterizes exactly what you did. There is no emergency here requiring assertion of your personal opinions over cited sources. You go on about “what the heck is wrong with talking” while refusing to put your own edits on hold while we do that. That’s hypocrisy. Calling something “fringe” that was published by the peer-reviewed Journal of Navigation of the Royal Institute of Navigation is sad and hilarious; and characterizing it as Peck vs everyone else is false. Peck is pushing back against a vocal minority, not the dominant opinion. You can squawk about peackocking all you like, but “master” is an actual position in the guild/apprenticeship system in use at the time which meets the requirements of your quoted “technical term”. That’s just one more piece of evidence in a pile of sophistry rationalizing your WP:OWNERSHIP behavior.

(ec) You seem to be British, relying only on Britannica and a British journal (as well as your Tolkien statement on your userpage?). You need to see beyond the viewpoint of your people. Also, I did not call the journal fringe, I called Peck's opinion fringe, as he states so himself. If you're claiming the use of "master" as like in the guild system, please provide evidence he went through the proper apprenticeship(s) to earn the title of master.

We can further state that he couldn't use an astrolabe or use it to take the altitude of the North Star to determine location, relying moreso on currents, clouds, wind, and his senses. (source). ɱ (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

If you really support the source (as it seems you do), you should know that we don't hold the opinion of one single historian as the truth. The literature he describes shows a vast rift between what historians/biographers think on the subject. That is crucial to note, and we simply cannot call him a "master navigator" in the lede with such a controversy over the topic. We can, however, call him a master from an apprenticeship and work, if there are sources to support that? Where are your sources for that? ɱ (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

“I called Peck's opinion fringe, as he states so himself”. No. He doesn’t. You’re just going further and further off the rails with your hyperbole, misquotes, hypocrisy, speculations about my nationality, WP:3RR violations, rationalizations thereof…. Strebe (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, clearly we agree to disagree, but you ignore my point that you simply cannot have that in the lede as truth when it's actually such an item of controversy. Please direct your attention to the topic at hand, and not with personal attacks against my character. ɱ (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

What on earth is there to agree to disagree about? Peck did not call himself “fringe”. That is a stone-cold fact. Saying we have to agree to disagree is just bald-faced weaseling. Meanwhile, now that I have graciously alerted you to the fact that some authors have published books questioning Columbus’s navigational skill, you have decided that that is now the controversy and “the topic at hand”. Well, every one of those sources that question Columbus’s skills are simply populist works, devoid of peer review, and from authors of no particular note. Peck pushes back against them because other academic works haven’t bothered to. Not pushing back against populist sources is common; Washington Irving’s myth about Columbus debunking a flat earth was repeated ad nauseam in populist works and is still widely believed. But of course actual historians always knew that it was bunk. These published opinions questioning Columbus’s skill have no more merit as a source than if I were to use Martha Kneib’s book title Columbus, Master Navigator in the Court of Spain or West et al’s Christopher Columbus: The Life of a Master Navigator and Explorer as sources for the “master” claim. Which is why I didn’t use them in my argument. But you seem happy to use whatever questionable sources you like and disqualify anything you don’t like. In your new edits, you’ve even left the impression that modern works all cast doubt on Columbus’s navigational skill, when the very article that clued you into this was written after all of those. And Peck shouldn’t be your only source of sources anyway. Strebe (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(←) Peck said that he "disagrees with his colleagues in the USA who present the "politically correct" view". I take this as a bias, as political correctness is a controversial, political topic, and authors who don't care about it tend to be right-wing nutjobs. I don't see how the European sources are academic while the American ones are populist, and several of the American works have highly reputable publishers, even Oxford University Press. Your single article of an author's viewpoint does not represent a historical consensus on the matter. Unless you can find one (and this makes it clear one doesn't exist), it's clearly a divided idea that will never hold weight as absolute truth. ɱ (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I take this as a bias, as political correctness is a controversial, political topic, and authors who don't care about it tend to be right-wing nutjobs. This interpretation and opinion is bigotry.

I don't see how the European sources are academic. This is a red herring. I never argued they were, and nothing I wrote mentions or depends on the European sources. In fact, you are wrong. Both the Jane and Taviani sources are academic. But again, that’s immaterial.

several of the American works have highly reputable publishers, even Oxford University Press. OUP and the rest are just a publisher. They don’t publish fringe views or books by people of dubious credentials. But they also don’t subject what they publish to peer review or fact-checking.

Your single article of an author's viewpoint does not represent a historical consensus on the matter. So let’s see. I gave you Peck. Through Peck I gave you four other sources. I gave you Flint through Encyclopædia Britannica. I gave you two populist book titles that use the term. You characterize this as “a single source”. I don’t understand how you talk yourself into publicly writing this stuff. Strebe (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding another voice here. That Columbus was a master navigator was uncontroversial until current political trends. I'm in the middle of a move myself, so my sources are buried in one of 57 packing boxes, so I can't directly refute your statements. But there isn't any urgency to this. Give this discussion a couple of days, in the meantime, with WP:BRD to allow a consensus to develop. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Tarl_N - thank you for weighing in. The source Strebe gives makes it clear there was plenty of literature on Columbus's poor navigational skills in decades prior. I would hope you can find your documents sooner rather than later, as I think it gives the 20,000 readers who see this each day a poor idea for us to start him off as a "master navigator" when that's questionable at best and a lie at worst. ɱ (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Strebe - You're losing the argument, and flailing around attacks for strawman defenses, including over my minor point about his bias. First off:

• Your own source contradicts that Columbus is widely considered a master navigator.
• You've still failed to give any evidence he was in a guild or served as an apprentice, becoming a master. Without that, the claim of him being a "master navigator" is wp:peacock puffery worthy of the Daily Mail.
• OUP doesn't just accept anyone when publishing, and book publication does involve plenty of editing and review. Do you understand that?
• Flint is the main author of the Britannica entry, but there are plenty of other contributors, just like this Wikipedia article. It's a questionable source, did you see WP:BRITANNICA? It likewise gives no evidence or supporting details as to why he's a 'master navigator'.
• You're literally insulting me again with "I don't understand how you talk yourself into publicly writing this stuff." What's with that? Can you not talk civilly about this controversial topic without charged attacks and insults?
• Lastly you've only given one truly reliable source for us to examine here. You stand by the biased author's viewpoint, bashing all the sources he does, even though it's clear as day that there is a 0% historical consensus. You simply cannot call him a master navigator in the lede when this is heavily debated to be true whatsoever. The very -title- of your citation makes it clear we can't make this claim in the lede. ɱ (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You're literally insulting me again with "I don't understand how you talk yourself into publicly writing this stuff." What's with that? Can you not talk civilly about this controversial topic without charged attacks and insults?l

This is a lie. User:Ɱ: I called Peck's opinion fringe, as he states so himself.

This is a lie. User:Ɱ: Your single article of an author's viewpoint…

This is a lie. User:Ɱ: (concerning [[WP::3RR]]) (ec), not really, I've made different adjustments]]…

This is weaseling: User:Ɱ: Again, clearly we agree to disagree [about whether Peck called himself fringe, when it is a fact that he did not]

This is hypocrisy: User:Ɱ: what the heck is wrong with talking here? while ensuring that your version is what remains, no matter how many times you have to revert.

You have three editors who have undone your edits and none who have supported them. You have now undone this material five times in the course of a few hours, in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.

And so on. Now ask yourself again why you’re not getting the responses you want. Strebe (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You're attacking me again because you have no argument here! My statements conflict with yours so they're all apparently -lies-? Only two people reverted the 'master navigator' bit, which is now the bit that remains, so what are you complaining about? You have it your way, after tag-teaming edit warring. Yet we've never edit warred, nor did we barely discuss, the section I added later. And there are now several people who support my opinions - two here in this discussion, and two in a separate discussion. Your personal attacks are again unwarranted and awful. Stop doing it and please explain to me where this master-apprentice relationship was, and how Peck's opinion is apparently more important than the total lack of consensus of historical narratives. PLEASE. ɱ (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am reading some Spanish sources. "Master navigator" translates to piloto mayor, and was an office or rank, sometimes aboard ship, sometimes not. It doesn't have some kind of direct correlation to skill. Among others, Amerigo Vespucci was named piloto mayor for Spain for four years. Other men aboard Columbus' ships held the title. I cannot find evidence that Columbus himself was piloto mayor. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Citations: Elizium23 (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Elizium23. I see that “piloto mayor” is generally translated as “master navigator”. Vespucci was awarded this title upon Columbus’s death, which I take to mean as the Master Navigator of the Realm, and not just the ranking pilot onboard a ship as it normally would be. Like you, I see no evidence that Columbus was given that title specifically (his conferred title of Admiral of the Ocean Sea being superior). Perhaps it is best to avoid the term, despite its usage in popular English works, so as to avoid confusion with the position title. A long bout of perusing readily available sources tells me that his skill as a navigator was not contested during his day, despite myriad other slanders propagated about him, and most modern scholars don’t seem take Morison and the few other modern doubters very seriously. I see no problem with adding a short section in that mentions the doubters—we already mention every claim ever made about the man, as far as I can tell—but I suggest, for the lede, “skilled navigator”. Or somesuch. The word “skilled” appears repeatedly in the literature. Strebe (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Strebe, I don't understand, have you read each of the sources Peck listed and determined their WP:RS status for each one? Did you read the evidence each one gave? Can I see all this? Because you're coming to some pretty big conclusions here, of the sources and of Columbus, and I haven't seen a through source analysis presented yet. And look beyond Peck's citations too, yeah? ɱ (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me also note that this term has only been in use in the lede for about three weeks. Before that, it instead described him with a variety of: explorer, admiral, colonizer, navigator, colonist, etc. This "master navigator" idea, taken from the crowdsourced Britannica, is not the status quo, longstanding, agreed-upon term in consensus. ɱ (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Unrelated to article, see WP:TALK#USE

who did he work for? one man conquered an entire hemisphere and that doesn't deserve mad gangstar propz?he worked for the initiator of the invasion and conquering of the western hemisphere and with portugal the creation of the atlantic slave trade with sub saharan africa.a slave trade which was already 800 years in full effect called the arab trans saharan east africa indian ocean slave trade which is another widespread genocidal atrocity which nobody ever talks about.i guess slavery is only wrong when it happens to certain people by certain people in certain places.back to who did he work for,here's a hint.why do they speak spanish in so many places outside of spain?never talked about,never condemned and castigated or vindictively criticized.portugal and spain get an almost complete pass for what they were a major part of.to their credit however they were just coming free of about 800 years of arab and berber muslim occupation and oppression and i guess they figured never again.human history is one continuous shitshow of violence,conquering and being conquered.no group is free and clear of having so much blood on it's collective and historical hands.no one.we need a better way of assessing and discerning human history and causality before it's too late.ressentiment will be our undoing no matter how much of the proper anger is justified and warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.249.141 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What adjectives to use in the opening sentence of this article

How did we get to the current discussion about Columbus's proper level of navigational skills, whether he was just a navigator or a master navigator?

Well, in the beginning of 2019 the opening sentence of this article said that Columbus was:

* an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist

That was later in 2019 changed to:

* an Italian navigator and colonist

By the end of 2019, the opening sentence said:

* an Italian explorer and colonizer

The opening sentence remained in this form until recently, when it was first shortened to just:

* an Italian explorer

And then, on June 14, 2020, to its current form:

* an Italian master navigator

This is the form that caused the current dispute, about the adverb "master" that was placed before the adjective navigator.

I think that the longer initial form above, from the beginning of 2019, was better, and I suggest going back to it, with some modifications. My specific starting suggestion, at the current point in the debate, is the following:

* an Italian commander, explorer, and colonist

Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I support this as more descriptive and informative. Columbus is best-known as an explorer, and for early colonization of the Americas. His navigation expertise is unclear, disputed among historians. ɱ (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can add that so far, the consensus at WP:NPOV/N is that "master navigator" should only apply as a formal title or if a majority of sources use the term, and even then, not to phrase it plainly (like it is now). ɱ (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No further action or discussion is taking place on this, but it's clear from Strebe's main source that a controversy exists, and it's clear from Elizium23's sources that the existing wording is misleading given a "master navigator" title Columbus didn't actually earn. With Tarl N. in agreement, and the contributors at NPOV/N also in agreement, I think it's safe to say I can make the change, and will do so tomorrow, unless anyone here feels there's more to discuss and wants to present more evidence. ɱ (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Commander is not a meaningful term here. The word never appears anywhere in the article; it is not a title ever bestowed on Columbus; it’s not synonymous with ship’s captain; it wasn’t a nautical duty at all in Columbus’s time; and it normally refers to the captain of a warship in nautical contexts. I don’t understand why we are putting up proposals for uncited, inapt descriptions as a cure for cited descriptions. Furthermore, this reading of User:Tarl_N.’s “agreement” seems very creative. I suggest you do as they requested and wait until they can weigh in with something a bit deeper than some googling. Strebe (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not thrilled with 'commander' either; the longstanding version of "explorer, navigator, and colonist" seems fine to me. Can we restore this long-term status quo until/unless Tarl comes up with anything more? (and given that Tarl says it's been of controversy recently, that makes me believe they are in the favor of the old wording). If not, not a big deal, but I don't like to rely on a distant pursuit, when I myself have a habit of putting off things I don't have to for a long time. ɱ (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, commander doesn't seem particularly relevant. I'm good with an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist. I dug out the reference I was thinking of, and it doesn't use the term "master navigator". I don't know if "colonist" conveys his later years properly; he was the royally-appointed official with jurisdiction over everything west of the Azores. And he royally (sic) fouled it up. Maybe at some point later on add "governor" or "failed governor of the west indies". Sorry for the delay in reply, my move is completed, but I'm still staring at 61 boxes of books which need to be moved to shelves. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 16:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Commander is nonetheless, in my view, the best and most accurate modern English language description of Columbus's precise role in his fleet in the four voyages/expeditions he made to the new world. Maybe it is about time it were introduced in the article and also used in some other contexts in the page. One other alternative to it may be "admiral," as the commander of a fleet or a group of ships. I will keep looking in the sources too. However, if the objections to the use of commander or admiral persist, I definitely support going back immediately to the longstanding version of "explorer, navigator, and colonist." But please note that I changed the link for the term "colonist" from Colonialism to Colonization. This is because the term Colonization, as a general process, is better applied in Columbus's case. Colonialism refers to a period in European and modern history which had not properly started yet in Columbus's time. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

His role during the initial exploration was as a commodore (a ship master who has command over other ships), but that doesn’t particularly define his career - it was a one-time role. The term Admiral (which he was granted later, ‘’Admiral of the Ocean Sea’’) has different connotations. It was not a military title, it was closer to a title like “sheriff” with huge jurisdiction. That was the role he screwed up. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

One time role? There were four voyages/expeditions, and these "innovative" exploration seafaring ventures into the unknown or at least the rather unfamiliar wide ocean waters to the west, for which he was the sole commander/admiral, define his career, to my mind, more than anything else. But that's OK. I'll be fine with going back to the longstanding version an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist, with the adjusted suggested Wikilink. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This last comment touches on an important consideration. Ephemeral titles and ad hoc descriptions of ephemeral roles are not what the lede is for. The lede is to introduce the topic; in biographical articles, that means, “What is this person best known for?” There is no support in the literature for “commander”, neither as a title nor as a description nor as something Columbus is well known for. We cannot use it. The reason why Encyclopædia Britannica and some book titles chose “master navigator“ was because Columbus is renowned for his navigational skill. Given the conflict with the usual translation of piloto mayor, I no longer support that terminology, but it is a mistake to ignore that reputation even if it might be false. Likewise, it is a mistake to ignore the popular notion that Columbus dispelled the medieval belief in a flat world, even though he didn't. Strebe (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's a mistake to ignore, but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate, either. The article needs to tell people he didn't dispel flat earth theory, and it shouldn't refer to him as a master navigator if he wasn't or if it's uncertain. If he's not a master navigator, then I don't see why we'd include "navigator" in the lead sentence. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe there is now consensus among everyone in not applying 'commander/commodore/admiral' to the first sentence? Can we now return to the longstanding version (with the better linkage)? We can discuss whether/how to phrase about his command roles or navigation skills in the lede or body next in a separate thread? ɱ (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Warshy: Regarding your edit summary for this edit: I have no idea what happened there. I did not deliberately delete anything. I suspect there was an edit conflict that Wikipedia somehow did not report to either of us before committing both edits. Strebe (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know what happened. Strange. In any case, your indentation shows that you were replying directly to TarlN's post, while ignoring mine completely. Your argument also just just reinforces his, and completely ignores my own question/argument to him. Never mind. As I said in my edit summary, all 4 editors agree we should go back to the longstanding version, with my adjusted wikilink pipe. We should start a new section after that is done. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)>

I “ignored” your posting because it didn’t exist in the content of the page I was replying to. I never saw your posting until I read your accusation in your edit summary restoring it. I’m as surprised as you.

As for “all four editors agree”, I don’t. As far as I can tell, my own comments about how I think this should play out have been ignored—speaking of being ignored. I don’t think those descriptive terms ought to be used without substantial agreement from the sources. If Columbus’s navigational skills are disputed, then calling him a navigator is also under just as much dispute, because the historians who wish to dispute his navigational skills don’t seem to consider him to be a navigator at all. Likewise, “colonist” is debatable because many sources don’t refer to him that way. “Colonist” is also not a distinctive reason for Columbus’s notoriety; colonists were a dime a dozen, so throwing it into the lede that way just seems tendentious. The article, and especially the lede, can’t be a tossed salad of editor�s’ favored factoids. If a broad sampling of sources use “colonist” in their summaries about the person, then we can and should. Otherwise not. Strebe (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To say that "colonists were a dime a dozen" in the time that Columbus started devising his colonizing plants as his voyages developed and succeeded borders on the ridiculous. His endeavors were definitely trendsetting in several areas, and that is why we are here still trying to determine the most important ones. But more simply: where were you throughout the period of over a year when the terms "colonist" or "colonizer" were present in the opening sentence of the English Wikipedia page about Columbus? I only took an interest in the editing of this page in the last two or three months, so I certainly never paid attention to it before. But I believe you have been editing here much longer than that. Maybe I'm wrong. Be well. warshy ^(¥¥) 22:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To say that "colonists were a dime a dozen" in the time that Columbus started devising his colonizing plants as his voyages developed and succeeded borders on the ridiculous. You know, if you’re going to ridicule, then I’ll get harsh. I said no such thing, and it is “ridiculous” of you to presume I meant that. My point was that there have been millions of colonizers over history. We have to presume that readers who come to the article don’t know much about the topic and that the lede is to inform them of the topic. Otherwise, the lede has no point. So, it is “ridiculous” not to think about the needs of a naïve reader who doesn’t necessarily understand the context of Columbus’s situation but, for example, knows that there have been millions of colonists. His status as a colonizer isn’t important. His status as the person who initiated colonization of the Americas presumably is.

I watch 255 articles. It’s “ridiculous” to think I would try to fix everything in any particular article—such as this one—at any particular moment. Mostly I just end up beating back the entropy.

Now, can we dispense with hyperbole, ridicule, paranoia over deleted edits, and questioning motives, and get on with the article? You have, again, ignored my observations. My observations are directly concerned with the article and with Wikipedia policy toward article content. We can’t just make up stuff. We are obliged to figure out the more-or-less agreed upon ways that the sources discuss the topic. In this case, how do the sources introduce Columbus? Strebe (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think warshy was trying to antagonize you, and your response indicates you're easily feeling attacked. Let's please pass on the fighting and instead continue to discuss the issues. I think even if there have been 'millions' of colonizers, there have likewise been 'millions' of explorers and navigators, no? I also think warshy and I are using the term as someone who establishes a colony (like Cortes for example), not just a pioneering settler out of many. In this way, Columbus was the first colonizer of the New World, no? So is that not extremely notable? Again, we can refer to what sources describe him as, but I think this still warrants discussion. ɱ (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My post/reply to Tarl N. above was inappropriately deleted by your post. There is no paranoia here. That effectively happened. I think I know how it happened. You read Tarl N.'s objection to my "commander" suggestion and you wanted to reinforce it, so you answered his post directly, without reading further at all. Now, when you do that the WP platform gives you a red warning saying you are editing an old version of the page, not the latest one. Somehow you did not see the warning or ignored it, and you were able to post your edit/reply to that old version of the page that did not include my reply. That effectively deleted my post from it as if it did never happen. Oh, well. I don't think there was any intentional ill will toward me in your inappropriate edit, and I'll have to live with it. Now, since you clarified that your "dime a dozen" remark was regarding history in general, I would encourage you to come up with a list of colonists and/or colonizers in history that were more important than Columbus. And, even more important still, in the history of the colonization of the Americas, I encourage you to come up with a list of colonists and/or colonizers that are of the stature of Columbus or above. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

As a long-time editor, I am familiar with Wikipedia’s editing functionality. I have never had this happen before. I agree that it could happen as you describe as long as I edited the entire page of an old version. I don’t do that; I use the edit link for the relevant section. Editing just the relevant section is not available if you edit an old version of the page. It is possible I slipped up that one time. However, I have also seen several instances of something like this in the last couple of days, right here on this page: I intended to reply, but when I clicked “edit” for this section specifically, the editable content was old, not even containing the text I meant to reply to. I have not been able to replicate this intentionally, but I will be paying more attention to the precise circumstances in case it happens again. Calling your response paranoid isn’t about whether or not it happened; it’s about your jumping to the conclusion that it was deliberate; jumping to the conclusion that my intent was to ignore you; questioning why I’m only interested in the opening sentence now that you’re involved. I’m not sure how long that goes on before User:Ɱ starts thinking you feel easily attacked, given their interest in such irrelevant speculations as they apply to me. Perhaps such speculations only apply to those whom they oppose.

I would encourage to come up with a list of colonists and/or colonizers in history that were more important than Columbus. The sentence we are haggling over doesn’t say anything about Columbus being “the most important”, so you are arguing a straw man. Did you miss my comment? His status as a colonizer isn’t important. His status as the person who initiated colonization of the Americas presumably is. I don’t know how to make it more plain. Leading out by describing Columbus with an ad hoc collection of mundane nouns (not adjectives) dreamed up by the editors-of-the-moment is not what the sources do and is not what informs readers. 21:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Focusing on the consequences of Columbus’s life seems like the way forward to me. Words like “explorer, colonist, navigator” can all be implied without bothering to waste words on them, while conveying Columbus’s legacy. I would structure the first paragraph something like this:

Christopher Columbus was the 15th century European who pursued his controversial scheme of sailing west into unknown seas in order to reach the "Indies" for trade, but accidentally found the Americas instead. His voyages opened the way for European colonization and exploitation of the vast "New World" he encountered, giving rise to the common notion that he discovered America. He is popularly, but falsely, believed to have proved that the world is not flat. Columbus's opening of the New World to Europe ultimately resulted in the deaths and dispossession of millions of American natives, making way for new nations critical to the modern world's political order.

By doing it this way, the question of whether he was a great navigator or navigator at all (why is that important to the consequences?) can be deferred to the article body. Calling him “Italian” (vs Genoese vs less likely things) can be deferred to the next paragraph, with more discussion in the body: That he was Italian is far less important than that he was European. Regardless of what he was, the results are the same, and it is the results that are most important in this leading paragraph. Subsequent paragraphs would also have to be reworked accordingly, but please consider a model like this, rather than a list of weak nouns. Strebe (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Oooh, you're reopening a huge can of worms here. There have been a ton of discussions about the use of "Italian" in the first sentence. Yes, I agree with your wording instead, but wow do I not want to go down that avenue right now. As for the rest, I agree that sure we don't have to quickly define him with a few short words, but that's a traditional trend on Wikipedia that I don't know if you/we can buck here. ɱ (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• The thing that bothers me the most is that "explorer", "navigator", and "colonist" are all nouns, not adjectives :-P Also, the man was "Genoese" not "Italian" but I know, we're not going there. I like Strebe's approach of avoiding the "Columbus was a [noun]" structure, although I'm not crazy about that particular drafted paragraph. To the OP's point: my !vote is, first choice, just "explorer" (because that's really what he's known for, being the man who "discovered The New World", even if that's not really true), second choice "explorer and colonist" (with a wikilink is fine but I don't think it's necessary because everyone knows what a colonist is), third choice "explorer, navigator and colonist". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been a ton of discussions about the use of "Italian" in the first sentence. Yes. The reason for those conversations was the objection to the term “Italian”. I myself have advocated for Italian over Genoese as first mention because that’s what sources and the rest of Wikipedia do. The reason is very likely that “Genoese” doesn’t mean much to many readers. If we just omit his nationality/ethnicity from the lead paragraph entirely, the problem goes away. I think it is easy to construct a policy here about what goes in the lead paragraph: “Why is Columbus important”? His ethnicity is not why he was important. His “Europeanness” was hugely important: The fact that he discovered the New World for Europe made all the difference. Contrast that with Leif Erikson, who was Norse and only discovered the New World “for” the Norse Greenlanders and possibly Icelanders. In this case, the Leif Erikson’s particular origin would be important and is rightly mentioned in the first sentence. Also, the paragraph as I wrote it conveys a lot of information compactly; part of that includes causing the reader to infer that Columbus’s decision to sail westward meant westward from Europe, not Italy, whereas if we threw Italian or Genoese in there, then disentangling Italy from the origin of the voyage would require yet more words. Strebe (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Columbus Genocide

First of all, Columbus & his crew brought measles to the Native communities they interacted with and as a result, massive numbers of Native people died. Michael S. Rosenwald at the Washington Post wrote about this. Second of all, I think there is an argument to be made that Columbus actively and even consciously engaged in cultural genocide by subjugating Native Americans. Third of all, Columbus was such an awful person that even the white men he worked with often thought he was brutal. Columbus sympathizers are no different from Nazi sympathizers. I'm not saying that simply to be provocative. I'm saying that because celebrating Columbus requires not caring about the humanity of his many, many victims and their descendants. Frank Sinatra was Italian - why not idolize him instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1418:4006:E497:4428:8FA7:ED7E (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)