Talk:Christopher Columbus

Tribute system punishment: hands being cut off by Columbus's men (FALSE)

The claim that Columbus cut off the hands of natives who didn't pay the gold tribute is not supported by the historical record. This article states that it was written by Bartolome De Las Casas, but then cites Howard Zinn and Hans Koning (who Howard Zinn took his chapter on Columbus from). In fact, I can find no mention of this claim prior to Koning's book, and it does NOT exist in Las Casas's book. It is true that there was a tribute system implemented in order to suppress a rebellion and pacify the island, and it is true that Ferdinand Columbus (in his biography of his father, based on primary sources available to him) says there was punishment for failure to comply, but there is no mention as to what that punishment was. (The Life, p. 150)

Furthermore, the first mention of hands being cut off by Las Casas in History of the Indies comes on page 117-118, in the aftermath of a 1504 battle when Nicolas Ovando was the governor. Columbus was shipwrecked on Jamaica at the time in the midst of his last voyage. Here's the passage: “After the arbalast attack, Indians could only try to run back to their . . . villages, but . . . the Spaniards overcame them in no time. . . . some Indians were caught alive and were tortured incredibly to find out where people were hidden . . . The Spanish squadrons arrived in this way . . . and you should have seen how they worked their swords on those naked bodies, sparing no one! After such devastation, they set out to catch the fugitives and, catching them, had them place their hand on a board and slashed it off with the sword, and on to the other hand, which they butchered, sometimes leaving the skin dangling; . . . And the poor Indians howling and crying and bleeding to death, not knowing where to find their people, their wounds untended, fell shortly thereafter and died abandoned.” (History, Book II, Ch. 15, p. 117-8)

This claim being attributed to Columbus has spread far and wide, but when you do the digging, it all originates with Zinn/Koning. Bill Bigelow, co-director of Zinn Ed Project, actually uses pieces of the above passage to claim that this was the work of Columbus as punishment for failure to pay tribute. Both claims are false.

At the very least, we need to acknowledge that this idea of Columbus cutting hands off as punishment for not paying tribute is NOT supported by evidence from the primary source historical record, and therefore should be taken out of the article.

Here is an article that takes a deep dive into the primary source record of Columbus and his voyages, along with shedding light on some of the egregious errors of some of his proponents and detractors, including just how far Zinn goes to distort the primary sources to get his point across: https://historyinfocus.net/2022/08/23/in-defense-of-history-not-columbus/

RfC: Are you in favor of changing information from the introduction part ?

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.

---

We all know how Wikipedia works. In this case, historical figures must be presented in time context. As for Christopher Columbus, he did not live during the existence of Italy. One RS also talks about this. Given that mention of Italy is an anachronism, I suggest using information from several RS in which Christopher Columbus is presented as Genoese. Sources that say Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer are:

• J.R. LeMaster, ‎Donald D. Kummings (2013) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Walt Whitman, p. 139.
• Jon Cowans (2003) Early Modern Spain: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 28
• Médar Serrata (2022) The True and Only Bones of Columbus”: Relics, Archives, and Reversed Scenarios of Discovery. Cambridge University Press. p. 476
• Ernle Bradford (2014) Christopher Columbus. Open Road Media. p.139
• Paul Strathern (2023) The Other Renaissance: From Copernicus to Shakespeare: How the Renaissance in Northern Europe Transformed the World.
• Lawrence A. Clayton (2012) Bartolomé de las Casas: A Biography. p. 10.

Based on the above, I ask interested editors whether the introductory part should be harmonized with more RS and instead of information that ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” be changed to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”

@Oshwah: Is this Rfc still valid Talk:Christopher_Columbus/Archive_17#RFC:_on_qualifier_Italian_in_Christopher_Columbus_lead and can we officially end this issue here if it is not the same question(this Rfc)?

I would invite everyone from the previous Rfc to specifically state here whether or not you are in favor to change information from the introductory part: ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer” @Tarl N., Warshy, Glendoremus, 악준동, CarolingianCitizen, Boynamedsue, Pincrete, Walrasiad, Eccekevin, Glendoremus, Ortizesp, Machinarium, Walrasiad, Machinarium, Fyunck(click), TulsaPoliticsFan, Strebe, Boynamedsue, TulsaPoliticsFan, Fieari, and Carlstak: Mikola22 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would prefer the use of Genoese. Italian at the time was an ethnic or regional identifier, perhaps similar to "Latin-American" today. Genoese is more precise. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

btw, I have edited the RfC to present a neutral question. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• As for me, I know how Wikipedia works and in this case the only option is respect the sources which say that Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer because Italian is an anachronism. Mikola22 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page, the MOS says The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. For guidance on historic place names versus modern-day names, see WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

So the problem here is that the MOS allows for multiple options (i.e. "where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.") If we go with citizenship, then we'd list Genoese; if we go with nationality then we could list Italian; if we go with permanent residence he's probably Castilian.

Personally, I think this is a really tough case because the MOS says our goal is "to provide context for the activities that made the person notable" and arguably he is most notable for his actions that made him a Castilian nobleman, but at the same time that appears to be the least popular option. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either, which would mean that in that case it would be OR. We have what we have and the sources state that he is Genoese or Italian explorer. And in this RFC, we decide on those two options. Mikola22 (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You pinged me for comment and if you read WP:OR it does not apply to talk page discussions about policy This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. It's a little rude to ping me for comment and then tell me my comment doesn't matter.

Also, We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either is just not true. Genoese is a denomyn for citizens of Genoa. Like what is the descriptor "Genoese" if not a descriptor of citizenship definitionally. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If it's a little rude then let me rephrase the answer. We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either that is, it is not written in the sources, and we cannot put what is not written in the sources into the article, for the simple reason because it is not written in the sources. Normally, everyone can put whatever they want in the article, but my example is that every piece of information must be in accordance with RS. Mikola22 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Backing up just a little, the sources you listed at the beginning use "Genoese" right? What does the word "Genoese" mean to you? Because when I read a scholar write "Genoese explorer" I interpret that to mean an explorer who was a citizen of Genoa and am not sure how else it could be read. Thus I'm having trouble following what you mean when you say We cannot use information(Genoese or Italian) in citizenship or nationality context because the sources don't do that either that is, it is not written in the sources, because, to me, the word Genoese definitionally is statement in the source about citizenship. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a different matter now. In which context is mentioned Genoese I do not know. I cannot tell from all the sources because it is not specifically mentioned, whether it is from the state, city, or in terms of nationality is difficult to say. One source mentions and Genoese citizenship but in the context that he is not from Italy. Mikola22 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as is. "Italian" is sufficiently correct, and conforms to common expectations of casual readers, so no WP:SURPRISE. Needs to be there somewhere, and first sentence is best place. Does not need to be mentioned again. Rest of the text can refer to him as "Genoese" specifically. Walrasiad (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  In that case, we also tell casual readers that Italy existed at the time of Christopher Columbus life which in reality is not the case. Mikola22 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't oblige us to say anything further. But, for your clarification, yes, of course, Italy existed at the time. Do you think it didn't? Walrasiad (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should not expand the discussion. I spoke in the context of the source and information which provided Ernle Bradford in first page[[1]] Mikola22 (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as is. There is no absolutely correct answer, use the traditional answer. Italian is a term which dates all the way back to antiquity, so let's dispense with the "only since Garibaldi" arguments. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is. This matter has been litigated endlessly, and nothing new has been presented this time. I also object to cherry-picking; plenty of sources say, or also say, “Italian”. Strebe (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• In my view, now as in the past, the Lede should simply state: "Christopher Columbus ... was an explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa who..."

This version does not call him either Genoese or Italian, which both can always arise plenty of controversy, as we have seen here many times, but simply says where he hailed from. It is just straightforward and accurate, in my view. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me just say that this kind of wording does not exist in the sources I mentioned. These sources say Christopher Columbus is Genoese explorer. And in that sense is my question. In any case, I respect everyone's opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If you read the previous RfC you'd see that the question of his citizenship is not settled in the sources. All reliable sources agree that he was born and grew up in Genoa. There can be no doubt that the assertion that he hailed from Genoa is precisely what all sources are saying. The adjective Genoese (as well as the Italian) one have other implications on which the sources do not agree. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I clearly support Italian, mainly because this choice is made with most other comparable cases, and Columbus, having spent more than half of his life outside of Genoa and in service of Spain, forms even less a basis on which to do differently. Taking the example of Martin Luther, the most influential figure of the reformation; he is listed as "German", but following this method he should be "Saxon". He isn't. Despite the fact that the "German" culture in this sense was only defined by 1871, if not later. Looking at "Italian" examples: Lorenzo de Medici (Tuscan/Florentine), Dante Alighieri (Romagnol?), Leonardo da Vinci (Tuscan), or Paganini (also Genoese). This has been done with nearly all people from the HRE and present-day Italian Mainland. Similarly, many people from the former Byzantine and Ottoman Empire -s, and present-day Spain, are collectively labelled Spanish, Ottoman, or Byzantine, respectively. Notable systematic exceptions being Basque People or culturally impactful persons that are directly intertwined to their culture and nations, like Laskarina Bouboulina who was born in the Ottoman Empire; Columbus, who is often "claimed" by the Iberian nations, however did not leave a such impact on the Genoese/Ligurian cultural identity, him not even being a Citizen of Genoa.

Apart from that, the decision should base on what we think is the most relevant but also most desired information, all the while considering precision and above all validity. I assume, and I am confident many others would as well, that the information primarily looked for when it comes to Columbus' "nationality" is that he was born and raised on the appenine peninsula, thus rendering him "italian", that being an umbrella term for the nearly innumerable cultures within it. Since this is the widest of all attributes, it is sensible and even necessary to work with such umbrella terms, lest there be a risk of overspecialisation. Any risk of misunderstanding is, finally, reduced immensely in that Columbus coming from Genoa is the first information given in the proper article, a compromise which works. The nationalities given in the lead sentences and descriptions have worked out perfectly well so far; I see no need to change a working system. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Here, here! Pistongrinder (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Genoese I would expect to be the most common descriptor among best sources - which is the only way of resolving this. Looking to other articles for some 'rule of thumb' isn't going to help much IMO. I'm surprised that Da Vinci is described as Italian (rather than Florentine), even more surprised that Canaletto is so described, since he is almost indissolubly linked to Venice. If sources are equally balanced, I don't understand the advantage of using a term like 'Italian' which is anachronistic, less precise and almost bound to be misunderstood by many unfamiliar with this period of history. 'Briton' and 'British' are descriptors going back to antiquity, but we wouldn't describe Robert Burns as a 'British poet' simply to save having to link to the more accurate geographical/cultural/political descriptor ie 'Scottish' . Similarly, the states of Renaissance Italy were rivals - often deadly rivals and to 'lump them all together' using a descriptor with a different meaning at that time seems uninformative at best. I can also see the sense of avoiding a 'nationality' and simply describing him as "coming from/born in Genoa" in its place. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So you would support changing the Johann Sebastian Bach article to say he was Thuringian, rather than German? That would be a disservice to readers. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. So why should it be different in Columbus' case? It's not only about uniformity with other articles (though I think that is not completely unimportant), it's above all much more helpful and simple to go with German in Bachs and Luthers cases, as well as Italian with this one (and others). CarolingianCitizen (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Since a similar RFC was held just 5 months ago can that discussion simply be closed and this RFC withdrawn? Nemov (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a waste of time. We will not keep re-litigating this every few months till certain editors get the result they want. Carlstak (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

That Rfc from 5 months ago was not closed so i don't know what the problem is? In that sense I asked the admin Oshwah is my question the same or is this Rfc relevant. And to finally solve this question. In any case, you can inform other admins to see if my question is legitimate. Otherwise, as far as I can see, that Rfc from 5 months ago mentions the issue in terms of nationality(”The question is whether that nationality should be removed as inappropriate”). My Rfc is not in the sense of nationality because the sources do not speak about nationality. So in that sense I think this Rfc is on a different basis and question. Another thing is that many editors perceive this issue in terms of nationality. But the sources do not talk about it. That's why we need a quality admin to clarify this situation. Mikola22 (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. "Quality admin"? That must be one you like. Not a good way to present yourself. Carlstak (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Any admin can do it, but that he has some experience in situations like this, considering that last Rfc has not been closed for 5 months and the same usually lasts about a month. Second, I can't moderate Rfc in the sense that I run after the editors to tell them that sources and this Rfc are not deciding on nationality of Christopher Columbus. It can be some other Rfc and RS can be presented there which talk about his nationality. The sources which are on this Rfc say that he is Genoese explorer and these sources do not mention his nationality. I as an editor cannot go beyond this information. I don't know which nationality he is, nor have I come across any information about it in the sources. That's why a quality admin is needed to set the framework of discussion. Mikola22 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

sources and this Rfc are not deciding on nationality of Christopher Columbus — But that’s the core of the problem, right? The Wikipedia guidelines want the political entity that the subject is a citizen of, a national of, or a permanent resident of. The sources can say whatever they want, but leaving the significance of “Genoese” vague just because some sources do doesn’t solve the problem any better than “Italian” does. There is no clear solution because each of those ways Wikipedia lists for assigning a person to a place yields a different result. That’s why these nonstop rehashes never result in any change: there is no “right” answer. And, to parse the Wikipedia guideline even more closely, it wants us to provide context for the activities that made the person notable. When Columbus made his important voyages, Genoa was pointedly not part of the context. While Italy wasn’t, either, his mostly Iberian colleagues sometimes referred to him as the Italian to distinguish him from the Iberian crowd: they thought his Italian ethnicity was significant. We don’t have much advocacy for calling him Castilian for any number of reasons. So, while “Italian” obviously doesn’t satisfy everyone, it’s what the article has settled on for good reasons, and nothing new about this topic has, or is likely, to come along to change that. Strebe (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

But we have sources that say he is Genoese or Italian. Information from introductory part is that he is an Italian explorer. Why not respect the sources which say he is a Genoese explorer? (By the way, he himself said that he was Genoese several times.) And why shouldn't this information be in the introductory part? If something in this sense is disputed, then the introductory part of the article should not contain either of these two informations. Mikola22 (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

“I can’t have it my way, so you can’t, either”? I think partial information is better than no information. I really don’t understand why some of the more accommodating proposals have not been seriously considered, such as, “Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa”. Strebe (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Finally! This is the one that solves all the problems. Just do it! Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I swore to myself that I was done with this conversation, but when I saw this exchange I had to respond. "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" is a perfectly reasonable compromise, and I fully support it. That's what the RFC should be about. Carlstak (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Carlstak - You and Strebe finally seem to agree on this now, as I do. I don't think that Boynamedsue would object to this compromise either. We don't know what the adjective Genoese means in terms of actual citizenship (or not), as it has been widely discussed above. But there can be no doubt that any source stating that Columbus was "Genoese" definitely means that he was "from the Republic of Genoa, and nowhere else. As I say, if the four of us agree on this now, it can be easily implemented, and end of story, I would say. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources I cited do not mention "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa". And we know what that means in terms of rules on which Wikipedia is based. We do not decide here on our personal suggestions, but on the informations which exists in the sources. Sources say that he is Genoese explorer. Mikola22 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the sources say "Genoese" more than "from the Republic of Genoa", but I think "from the Republic of Genoa" is a reasonable paraphrase of "Genoese", and if it helped resolve the dispute I would have no problem with it. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you taking this Rfc seriously or are you joking? The four of you would make compromise and put information that Christopher Columbus was "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" and this information is already in the article "Christopher Columbus (/kəˈlʌmbəs/; between 25 August and 31 October 1451 – 20 May 1506) was an Italian explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa". Mikola22 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Taken literally, your RFC would word the leading sentence as, “Christopher Columbus was an [sic] Genoese explorer from the Republic of Genoa”. I don’t think anyone would vote for that. No, I did not look at the lead sentence when addressing this RFC (my bad) because I trusted the presentation of your proposal. I thought this was about replacing “Italian” with “Genoese” — which is what we are always arguing about here — not also about deleting “from the Republic of Genoa”, a phrase that I forgot we had already put in place as a way to avoid yet another iteration of this very tired argument. I guess it didn’t work. Strebe (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The inconsistency of the changes we're all talking about here hadn't occurred to me until I read this- can we perhaps clarify first how the first paragraph, especially the first sentence "[…] Columbus […] was an Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa." would change if we decided to do the change? I just had the idea that might be a bit helpful, before we're just repeating what has been said over and over again (there's still lots of brilliant new things coming up, but all in all I think its become rather repetitive and dragging at this point).

So to bring in some fresh wind to end this; could someone please summarise clearly and exactly what changes we are even talking about?

I guess if we have that clearly in front of us we'll have no more troubles in finding the solution to this. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The introductory information that I propose is ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. And is he “from from the Republic of Genoa” or “from Italy” etc, is not a question of this Rfc. It is possible to have a new Rfc on that issue and whether behind ”Genoese explorer” it should be written that he is from somewhere or if it will be Genoese with link to Republic of Genoa or Italy, Spain etc. Or nothing should be written behind ”Genoese explorer” That's all a question for another Rfc. We have to deal with one question at a time. Mikola22 (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• (responding to ping) My preference would be to call him Genoan for a few reasons:

Describing Columbus as an Italian is an anachronism in the sense that his contemporaries overwhelming described him as Genoese and not as an Italian; Taviani(1985) provides more than 20 examples of contemporaries describing Columbus as a Genoan; and Columbus clearly considered himself to be a Genoan.

Contemporaries described him as Genoan because then, as now, it provides important context; the direction of his career was inextricably tied to his Genoese background; he learned to sail on Genoese ships, he sailed Genoese trade routes into the Atlantic and found support and connections from Genoese expat communities in Portugal, Spain, and elsewhere.

Modern biographers focus on his Genoan background and tend not to refer to him as an Italian. In fact, Morison(1974) calls Columbus a Genoan and makes the point that he was not "an Italian in the modern sense". Glendoremus (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• We can include the information in the second sentence instead of the first sentence. An ethnic Italian from Genoa who became a Castilian noble. Senorangel (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  The sources cited do not speak about ”An ethnic Italian from Genoa who became a Castilian noble.” Sources cited say that he is ”Genoese explorer”. In this sense, let's try stick to the sources, because otherwise, with this wording, we are breaking the rules on which Wikipedia is based. Mikola22 (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Dear editors, I respect everyone's opinion, but I ask you to stay on the question whether “Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” or “Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. It is very likely that the old Rfc has not been closed because there are various proposals which have complicated the closure. Accordingly, when this Rfc is closed, every editor immediately tomorrow can start a new Rfc with their question. If this Rfc is concluded with the information that Christopher Columbus was an Italian ie Genoese explorer, the new question may be whether "Christopher Columbus was an Italian/Genoese explorer" or "Christopher Columbus was an Castilian explorer" or "Christopher Columbus was an ethnic Italian from Genoa who became a Castilian noble" or "Italian navigator from the Republic of Genoa" or "ethnic Italian and Italian explorer" or "Spanish explorer" or "Portuguese explorer", etc. And each of you provide sources which talk about Columbus in that way and we'll discuss it again. This Rfc does not address all interpretations of who Columbus was but only to the question whether "Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer" or "Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer", based on cited sources.

This is also a message to the administrators to take this into account at the time of closing this Rfc. The only opinions that are relevant in this Rfc are those which only deal with the question whether “Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” or “Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. Anything beyond that is a matter for other Rfcs. Mikola22 (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it is inappropriate for editors to discuss the matter more broadly? Is that some Wikipedia guideline that I don’t know about? You can find editors’ responses to the RFC at the top level, bulleted. You are free to ignore the rest of the text if you like. Strebe (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you can discuss the matter more broadly. This is just an information for the admins that I have informed the editors about the issue which this Rfc deals with. In the time of closing it will be easier for admins to close this Rfc because opinions which go outside the given question are not relevant and everyone is aware of that. There are other Rfcs that will deal with these other questions or other facts, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is irrelevant because it is really just a rehash of another months-old RFC paraphrased. You are not respecting other editors who've already addressed the issue at length, a conversation of which this is just another iteration. Carlstak (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully they're following this Talk Page, then. If you feel so inclined, perhaps you could tag engaged editors from the previous talk page to join this one. Where this one has already received the attention it has and where it has been five months, it seems unlikely and unrealistic to close it now. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

[...] "perhaps you could tag engaged editors"[...]. For what it's worth, the previous participants appear to been pinged when the RFC was opened. My participation has been roughly "Enough, leave it alone". This entire process smacks of WP:BLUDGEON, repeating the arguments again and again, hoping to tire out their opponents and get their way. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If this Rfc is irrelevant the administrators will tell us that. Existing edit Request and RFC ask the question in terms of the of Italian nationality and Italian and Genoese nationality. Therefore, it is clear that I am not asking the question in terms of nationality, because the sources do not use that information either. It is also unclear how someone can start RFC or edit Request using a term(nationality) which does not exist in the sources at least as far as Genoese is concerned. Moreover, not a single source was cited in the introduction of these discussions. It is actually an WP:OR question on which the editors decide whether or not it will be part of the article? This is how I see the situation as an editor, and the admin will have the final word. Mikola22 (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mikola22: "If this Rfc is irrelevant the administrators will tell us that." Administrators (as such) won't even look at this RFC until it expires or someone withdraws it. The closing might even be performed by an uninvolved non-administrator. At that point, the closing comment might say "this was too soon, the RFC should not have even been filed." I would suggest you (as the author of the RFC) withdraw the RFC, it's pretty clear this discussion is going nowhere. Next time you file an RFC, you might consider specifically quoting the statement you object to, and specifically stating what your replacement statement would be. That could reduce the level of confusion in the discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: My Rfc or question is in accordance with the sources. I put on Rfc what is written in the sources. My question is specific and it does not violate any rule. Existing edit Request and RFC which are on the talk page and which have been going on over 5 months, as I said, they mention nationality in the question, which has nothing to do with the sources, unless there are sources that mention Italian nationality, they certainly do not mention Genoese nationality, which means that it is a question which violates the OR rule and for that reason these two discussions should have been closed by admin. By the way, I saw immediately when reading edit Request and RFC(which exist on talk page) that anything and everything is discussed there and I knew immediately that this is the reason why these discussions were not closed. I see that it has started to be discussed here as well in such a way (was he Chinese, Spanish, Venetian, American, etc.), even though my question is very clear and in accordance with the sources. I don't care who he was, what his nationality is and from where he's from. My question on this Rfc is whether or not you are in favor to change information from the introductory part: ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw immediately when reading edit Request and RFC(which exist on talk page) that anything and everything is discussed there and I knew immediately that this is the reason why these discussions were not closed. My take on it is different: The RFC never came to a consensus, and it probably would not have reached a robust consensus even if those discussions had not happened. Discussing the context and alternatives is important in an editor’s decision whether to support an RFC or not. I will not commit my vote to an RFC’s proposal if I don’t even know what the alternatives are. Alternative proposals help me consider whether I ought to support the proposal of the RFC. As far as your proposed text goes, you say it is clear, but the literal interpretation of your proposal would result in Christopher Columbus… was an [sic] Genoan explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa who…. I’m skeptical you’d get any support for that. Strebe (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Information from the article, 16 February 2023... was an Italian explorer and navigator who completed.. information that Columbus is from the Republic of Genoa does not exist at that moment in the introductory part. This information at that time exists in the section, Early life.. 'Columbus's early life is obscure, but scholars believe he was born in the Republic of Genoa between 25 August and 31 October 1451'. Accordingly, information that he is from the Republic of Genoa or born in the Republic of Genoa can be part of a section Early life. The sources I cited on Rfc say he is Genoan explorer and very likely they mention and that he is from the Republic of Genoa or born in the Republic of Genoa. If RS mentions it, I don't know why it would be strange if Wikipedia also mentions this information? Or that I have to gather support for such information? Well, those sources were written by historians. If on February 16, 2023 the article contain only information that Columbus was Italian, why couldn't now be only written that he was Genoan explorer? In any case it may be a question for the new Rfc. This information has nothing to do with my question and this Rfc. Mikola22 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Because over the course of 20 years, the editors of this page disagree on exactly this point, and many of us do not understand why this is being litigated again. The current text exists as a way to satisfy both those who consider Genoa to be the better choice as well as those who believe Italian to be the better choice. I, for one, will not support a return to a state that leaves one of those two factions dissatisfied. I think it is far past the time that people should expect to get only their own favored text here. Strebe (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"I think it is far past the time that people should expect to get only their own favored text here." Amen. Carlstak (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Italian I think CarolingianCitizen hit the nail on the head. In addition to CarolingianCitizen's eloquent argument above, I submit that many reliable sources refer to Christoher Columbus as being Italian. While I understand the RSs provided above state his citizenship differently, I believe far more state "Italian." Pistongrinder (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree (and also, thanks :) ). Especially since this whole discussion has taken on a very long length and the probability I see for a new compromise being made decreases steadily. Just to remind everyone; we have a good solution as is, it literally includes both fractions without contradiction. This lengthy and polarized discussion should be ended with a status quo, I think it will come down to that anyway looking back at the last 16-20 hours. The argumentative situation strongly reminds me of the constant discussion about "Czech Republic" being renamed to Czechia; it's been discussed and retained over and over again over the last months or years. Let's avoid that happening here. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  How are sources weighed when there are many on either side? Senorangel (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I might well be wrong about this, but I figure you can't. At least not when, like in this case, one source is contradicted by another in endless back and forth. That's why I feel this discussion ought to be closed soon, but I don't want to repeat myself. Maybe something does come up to change it all.

  Another problem is that some sources will say entirely different things; we can't take these into account in this RfC and basically must ignore them. Then to decide what sources really are relevant here is naturally complicated and a bit subjective as well. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2023 (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.

RfC: Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer in the introduction part?

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.

---

Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer? Regarding this question, the sources speak differently that is, they describe differently who he was in this sense, and I'm interested in what you think?

@Tarl N., Warshy, Glendoremus, 악준동, CarolingianCitizen, Boynamedsue, Pincrete, Walrasiad, Eccekevin, Glendoremus, Ortizesp, Machinarium, Walrasiad, Machinarium, Fyunck(click), TulsaPoliticsFan, Strebe, Boynamedsue, TulsaPoliticsFan, Fieari, Carlstak, Strebe, and Pistongrinder: I ask the editors to repeat their answers. Mikola22 (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Retain as is, which means neither on its own, as per lengthy conversations about the previous RFC and endless Talk page converstations.. Strebe (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is - this has been blathered about in discussions over and over. There needs to be a long moratorium after this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Genoese - most accurate for nationality. Machinarium (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Genoese Newcomer summoned by bot. A person primarily affiliated with one state or region in those days can hardly be considered "Italian". "Genoese", "Venetian", "Florentine", etc. is usually more accurate and less anachronistic. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Neither The lede should not use either adjective, because the implication of the use of such adjectives is either to "nationality," which is anachronistic in this specific case, or to "citizenship," about which we possess no positive evidence. So the lede should simply and clearly state that "Columbus was an explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa..." We know where he came from, but not what his citizenhip status there was at the time he left. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is. I'm getting tired of this, as I mentioned before, this smells of WP:BLUDGEON. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is bludgeoning. Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To be more precise, the current phraseology in the lede, an Italian explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa is fine. No need to change it. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as is. Why are we doing this again? Is the same proposer going to be doing this again and again until he gets the result he wants? Walrasiad (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• From Genoa The lede should not use either adjective, because the implication of the use of such adjectives is either to "nationality," which is anachronistic in this specific case, or to "citizenship," about which we possess no positive evidence. So the lede should simply and clearly state that "Columbus was an explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa..." per warshy. To repeat myself I don't understand the advantage of using a term like 'Italian' which is anachronistic, less precise and almost bound to be misunderstood by many unfamiliar with this period of history who would not know that it would have been a very broad geographic/cultural descriptor at the time, rather than tied to national identity/citizenship. Why be less precise and less informative? Pincrete (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Genoese because in my opinion, this information would be in accordance with the historical time context and with the sources, while the “Italian” in this case would be an anachronism. Mikola22 (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is since the description is not just succinct in dispensing information but this is what historical texts, aka reliable sources, use about the subject. (Checking back on the whole rigmarole of discussions, I wonder whence such passione. I suspect the sneaky hand of Venetian provocateurs.) -The Gnome (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• If you were thinking of me (sneaky hand of Venetian provocators), there is no conspiracy theory. I as an editor edited articles in which it was not possible to include information which was anachronistic or out of historical time context. And then I broadened my horizons a bit and saw that there is informations in other articles that are out of historical time context. And my intention is that all articles in this sense respect the same principle if there are sources which provide information in historical time context. Mikola22 (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Greetings, Mikola22. I do not know you from the Doge so my little aside remains what it is: A humble attempt at collegial humor. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• How is it succinct when we have to add an explanatory note to the word 'Italian'? A note that basically says 'Italian' doesn't actually mean 'Italian', but doesn't inform greatly as to what it did mean in CC's time. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Italian means Italian. The chronology is trivially presented in the text. Wikipedia routinely and quite correctly guides and points users in geography or history to modern times, which is why we have, for instance, the battle of Thermopylae situated in Greece, although that country did not exist before 1828 or thereabouts. The status quo is fine. -The Gnome (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae, Location Thermopylae, Greece (with link to Ancient Greece. Short description information from the article. Mikola22 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

My point. -The Gnome (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Thermopylae links its location to Ancient Greece, which is about a civilisation and era. So, although it's a bit anomalous for a battle to take place in a civilisation, there is little room for misunderstanding the place or political background. Within the Thermopylae article, we are told that defending Thermopylae was "an alliance of Greek city-states led by Sparta". So clear, apt, linked terms used for historical entities involved in the battle.

What should 'Italian' link to? Because the note merely says: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity." So what did/does this word mean when applied to Columbus? Someone from a broad cultural and civilisational region? A member of an ethnic or linguistic group. How do I know? Pincrete (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Genoese. (Summoned by bot) MOS:FIRSTBIO states: "The first sentence should usually state: ... 2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them) ... 3. Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.". I take that in the context of how the world existed then and not as it existed now and there are WP:RS to back that up. TarnishedPath^talk 10:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is Enough of this ceaseless fishing for the desired result. Carlstak (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Retain. Pure bludgeon. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Suggestion: No matter how this RfC turns out, it would most probably be best for everyone concerned to have the relevant issue heavily salted and kept in the freezer. -The Gnome (talk) 08:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  You don’t need to freeze cured meat; the whole idea is that it keeps on its own ^{[just kidding]} Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Retain as is. Same reason as given after the in-depth discussion last year. A15730 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• 3 RFCs on the same question in 5 months. Can someone stick a fork in this WP:DEADHORSE. Quick retain. - Nemov (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Genoese the modern state of Italy is a young country even if a certain idea of “Italianness” has been around for ages. Similar case to Germany— I wouldn’t call Frederick the Great “German” just because Prussia was part of the sort of “generic German zone” because Germany is also a very young country and when we say “German” or “Italian we generally mean “from the modern country of Germany/Italy”. Dronebogus (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Genoese - to refer to him as 'Italian' would be anachronistic. Styx (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is, even if he was Genoese by nationality he is Italian by ethnicity, and this is one of the few cases where MOS:ETHNICITY probably doesn't apply.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Genoese – I think that there should be both, but Genoese is certainly more relevant for him than italian, considedring the identity of an Italian was not really a concept until the 19th century. Matteow101 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Matteow101 A signature, please. Mikola22 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mikola22 sorry about that. Matteow101 (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Either Genoese or from the Republic of Genoa. Convincing argument can be made for either, large numbers of sources refer to him as Genoese, and they are of much higher quality than those that refer to him as "Italian". I find "from the Republic of Genoa" to be entirely satisfactory as a synonym of "Genoese", so that would work as a compromise if others are unwilling to accept "Genoese". Boynamedsue (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Neither & Simplify lead sentence - The issue of nationality here is not straightforward. Yes. He was Genoese, which is part of what modern day readers will all recognize as Italy, but the thing he's primarily notable for (i.e. voyaging across the Atlantic) was mainly a Spanish affair. At the moment, we seem to be trying to squeeze all this information into the lead sentence, which is too much information for one sentence. We should keep the lead sentence real simple (e.g. Christopher Columbus was an explorer and navigator who completed several voyages across the Atlantic ocean that opened the way for the widespread European exploration and colonization of the Americas.). The lede sentence should be as simple as possible, and explain plainly why the subject is notable. Unless nationality is a central aspect of notability, it can simply to be excluded. In the following sentence, we can explain more clearly, and directly, Columbus's nationality, and the nationality of the folks who backed his trip. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is (summoned from WP:Dashboard). I think the EFN explains this sufficiently. Would "Genoese-born" be an acceptable middle ground? It's the solution we use for pages like Adolf Hitler, introduced as Austrian-born German. (and with that I fulfilled Godwin's Law) InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Retain as is - The status quo suffices. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion section

• Mikola22, your RFC statement, as copied by the bot (which does not include the section head) does not actually state the question. You should also clarify what is meant by the sources speak differently, the word choice is unusual. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I assumed it meant that the sources are all over map... which they are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Alpha3031 is it better now? The sources speak differently in the sense that one part and the other part of the sources has its own interpretation in the Italian/Genoese context. That is, some say he was was an Italian explorer, other that he was was an Genoese explorer. Mikola22 (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Latin equivalent of the term Italian

Given that part of the editors considers that information from the article (was an Italian[c] explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa) should remain as it is, this question should be clarified. In the note 'Italian' there is this information: the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity.

• 1 Which sources prove this information?
• 2 In which context this information is in some source that talks about Christopher Columbus?
• 3 Is it some universal term or information that all historical figures in this case from Italy will be marked with in wikipedia?

I as the initiator of this Rfc ask if someone is Italian or Genovese explorer, and I support information based only on the sources that say so about him. With my question I as an editor the not support wording or information from the article ie from the note if an additional explanation maybe is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE. This clarification is important for all interested editors who may not know how it happened that this information is included in the article. @Fyunck(click), Jpgordon, Carlstak, The Gnome, Pincrete, and Strebe: Mikola22 (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Gnome you have to explain from where informations in the Italian note comes from. If this informations are inconsistent with the sources regarding Columbus or if it happens to violate wiki rules then the opinion which is allowed 'Retain as is' is not relevant because it includes the information from the note which is not a question in this Rfc question. This is a question for other Rfc (are you in favor that in the Italian note write this or that? etc). My question is specific and does not concern the note, especially if the information inside is against the rules of Wikipedia. And in that context I will ask the admin not to take such answers into account. It does not mean that the admin will agree to it, but I will request it and explain it. I love your humor in this situation and I have no problem with it. Mikola22 (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Greetings, Mikola22. It's obvious that you are passionate about the issue, which might be the reason, yet not the excuse, for your intense presence in this RfC and elsewhere. I'd suggest you leave well enough alone; in other words, you have made yourself clear explicitly and in great detail and perhaps it's better to let the RfC play out as RfC's are supposed to do. I have exhausted my arguments and will not part in the RfC anymore. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Gnome I'm just telling you that your opinion 'Retain as is' include and this information the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity. Your opinion is allowed, but my Rfc question doesn't concern this formulation. Unless it can be proven that such wording is part of the sources which mention Columbus in the Italian context, because such wording or fact is not part of my Rfc question. To translate, your answer is not relevant in that case, because maintaining the situation as it is means having information in the article that Columbus was Italian with an additional explanation which is possible WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE. I say this to you and others to know because there is a possibility that such answers will not be taken into account. So that it doesn't happen later, 'we didn't know'. Greeting. Mikola22 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't doubt that "the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity". The Romans and the Greeks had names for most of the peoples/regions of Europe, but what they meant by 'Italian', I've no idea and am left to guess it meant a broad geographic or cultural and/or ethnic descriptor. What I question is why we would want to use a generic term, which in modern usage is misleading, when we could be more exact and more succinct simultaneously. Pincrete (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Pincrete, In addition to the fact that this information is not part of the sources which talk about Christopher Columbus. We do not know from which source this information is or in which context is in some source. Therefore, information itself at this moment and in context of Christopher Columbus is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE. Even if in some source exist this information, claim that "the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" could refer to parts of today's France as well as parts of Slovenia and Croatia, so this could mean that the term also refers to modern people living in those areas or historical figures from those areas. And(since antiquity) it can also mean a smaller part of Italy which is not part of where Christopher Columbus is born. These are assumptions because we do not have sources that say which geographical context of ancient Italy is. Mikola22 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Mikola22, you need to stop bludgeoning this page in your attempt to get the result you want by "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from [your] own, and making the same argument over and over, to different people." It's disruptive. Carlstak (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources say that Christopher Columbus is Italian or Genoese. And everyone has the right to decide which sources to respect. But the note contains information which is not in the sources. It is about the term "Italian" which is "used" since "antiquity". The term in this context is for whom, for what, where, in which geographical space, in which context? Where are the sources that talk about it? There are hundreds of sources in which Christopher Columbus is Italian and in the article we do not have a single historian's source in this sense, but we have some information in the note that does not exist in the sources. WP:VERIFY (verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports). Where is RS for information in this context? Mikola22 (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If you looked at the history, you would know it was cited to Pliny and this ended up being dropped in previous editing. You have been informed of this on the talk page of User:ActivelyDisinterested who suggested that you wait until the Rfc was closed before bringing this up. I think you have trouble listening to other editors. That is your choice. Anyways, I think you are misunderstanding WP:synth, WP: bludgeon, and the meaning of "anachronistic". Lastly, I believe there is a rule against discussing articles outside of that articles talk page. Again, your choice, but I don't think this is the way to go about improving an article. Best Regards. A15730 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll talk about it when the Rfc is done. But to cite Pliny (AD 23/24– AD 79) in the Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) article if someone can explain on my talk page what they have to do with each other? I assume that this is also primary information? In several years of editing I haven't encountered such a combination. I don't have experience with such editing, so I wouldn't get into trouble. I've never really seen a situation like this. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The city to Pliny was added in response to the oft-repeated claim that the term "Italian" only existed after Garibaldi. Which is patent bullshit. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's original research which has been deleted at least once. Nobody is saying there was no such thing as "Italians" before Garibaldi. Rather that it was an ambiguous ethnic and geographical label, and to apply it to citizens of the many polities that roughly approximated the territory of modern Italy in the Middle Ages and early modern period is anachronistic. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

change "The transfer of commodities, ideas, and people between the Old World and New World that followed his first voyage are known as the Columbian exchange." to "The transfer of commodities, ideas, people, and disease between the Old World and New World that followed his first voyage are known as the Columbian exchange." Rgoldstein24 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Plus crops, flora, fauna… Strebe (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I used the list of items from the lede paragraph of Columbian exchange. Pinchme123 (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023 (2)

change "The extent to which he was aware the Americas were a wholly separate landmass is uncertain; he never clearly renounced his belief he had reached the Far East." to "It is unlikely that he was aware that the Americas were a wholly separate landmass; he never clearly renounced his belief he had reached the Far East." Rgoldstein24 (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe this is an improvement. We don’t know what was going on in his head. He may have privately realized he never reached the Indies but was unwilling to admit it, for example. Strebe (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Pinchme123 (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023 (3)

change "He then visited the islands now known as Cuba and Hispaniola, establishing a colony in what is now Haiti." to "He then visited the islands now known as Cuba and Hispaniola in search of gold due to the advice of Natives, establishing a colony in what is now Haiti." Rgoldstein24 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should information from the note behind Italian be removed or not from introduction part and the article?

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.

---

In the note behind the Italian there is the following information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa".

• 1. Is this information in accordance with the sources, context in the sources which is relevant to this article and Wikipedia rules? And in this sense, this information is in accordance with which sources, which context and which Wikipedia rules?

• 2.This information is not in accordance with the sources, context in the sources which is relevant to this article and Wikipedia rules? And in this sense, this information is not in accordance with which sources, which source context and which Wikipedia rules?

Each editor can choose option 1 or 2, explain position on the matter, and in this context each editor can express opinion whether cited information is legitimate or not, in accordance with the rules or not, etc, ie should the same be removed or not from introduction part and the article. Mikola22 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I consider this RfC deliberately disruptive. Not every single word on this page needs to be justified with bolded assertions. Usually when editors disagree they have informal discussions on the talk page. Only in the most severe cases are requests for comment necessary. I recommend User:Mikola22 give this page some space for a few days. Their single-mindedness on getting their way on this page appears to my reading unhelpful. BusterD (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • BusterD That was the first possible problem that I only saw later, my RFC cannot in any case give legitimacy to the information which is behind the mention of Italian, because that information wasn't in question of earlier RFC. It is possible that this information is legitimate and in accordance with the rules etc, and it is possible that it is not legitimate and in accordance with the rules, etc. That's why we need opinion of the wider community. Mikola22 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

    I must also add that this information probably entered the article based on the consensus of several editors. This means that this information has probably been discussed on the talk page or during the editing. And information itself, based on that consensus, may or may not be disputed. However, consensus mean that: "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Therefore, if we do not have anything behind this information in the form of a source, etc., we must determine in a broader discussion on what this information is based on, and whether the same is or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mikola22 (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. and remove from the atricle. Information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity". First, I didn't find RS that contains this information and it is WP:VERIFY problem, the editors on the talk page say that this is possibly information of "Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24 – AD 79), called Pliny the Elder". This would mean that this information is likely WP:PRIMARY. Given that this information is not contained in the source which talks about Columbus it is also WP:OR. Also, this information has its own context and is not contained in the source which talks about Columbus so the problem is and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In a secondary sense, given that this information is not part of any source which talks about Columbus it is also WP:FRINGE.

Following the above, it is my opinion that this information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" cannot be part of the article because it violates more Wikipedia's rules. Mikola22 (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It is disruptive. Unbelievable. This person is completely ignoring input from other editors, including an admin directly above, and continues to bludgeon the page. Someone needs to stop this nonsense. Carlstak (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Carlstak Feel free to join this RFC. You can choose option 1. or 2. and explain your answer. That's why I started this RFC. Let us all find out together whether this information is or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mikola22 (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Wasn't an RFC on this topic, closed mere hours ago? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • GoodDay Previous RFC had a question based on sources(RS) Italian/Genoese, since I can't open an RFC with a non-source based question. That RFC cannot give legitimacy to some information(Italian note) which is possible without any confirmation in the sources(RS). Nor was my intention to legitimize some information(Italian note) that may or may not be in accordance with the rules. When in previous RFC I initiated a discussion in that direction because I did not want that my RFC legitimize this information, no one joined discussion. Now this RFC is an official discussion about this information. Please, if you could choose option 1. or 2. and express your opinion about it. Mikola22 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment -- This is bludgeoning and distinctly disruptive editing. Mikola22 is at risk for a lengthy block should this continue. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Mikola22 has been blocked five times previously, most recently for violating an arbcom-imposed topic ban. One time, their talk page access was removed. Given that level of ongoing drama, I rather suspect it's time for an administrator to conclude they simply "don't get it". Tarl N. (discuss) 17:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - The OP has been asked to drop the stick and is clearly not getting the message. It's time for the stick to be taken away from the OP. I would support ending this RFC. Nemov (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2023 (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.

Possible OR information

I started a discussion about information from the article: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity; most scholars believe Columbus was born in the Republic of Genoa" Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christopher_Columbus. I would ask all the editors who participated in putting this information in the article to help decide if this information is OR. I don't know anything about that information, nor have I found it anywhere, so I would ask for help. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE. Enough already, ANI is the next step. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This has also been cross posted to WP:FTN#Christopher Columbus. I suggest centralising the discussion here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Enough is enough. ANI next. Carlstak (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Last thing I know about information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" is that it is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder((AD 23/24 – AD 79), Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [[2]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."

The same information has been deleted from the article Dante_Alighieri ie Italian footnote Talk:Dante_Alighieri#Possible_fringe_and_OR_information_​ as possibly WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the history of Italy. The situation at the time of Columbus is summarized in Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire)#Imperial fiefs in the modern period. While the city states were de facto independent, they were titularly part of the Kingdom of Italy, which the Holy Roman Empire continued to claim sovereignty over and which the city states or their citizens usually acknowledged some kind of deference to. There is no scholarly controversy over whether Columbus’s European contemporaries knew what “Italian” meant, that “Italy” at the time included Genoa, or whether Columbus was sometimes referred to as “Italian” by his contemporaries. Please consider what being a lone, loud voice on this topic means to others on Wikipedia. Strebe (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Strebe first WP:NOTSOURCE, second, here we're talking about information which is possible OR information. Given that you concluded in the RFC response that article situation should be kept as it is although you were aware of the fact that information contained in the article(footnote) is possibly OR, despite that you were for information which is OR. In that context it's a matter of decency to say whether information you supported is OR information or not? As for the rest, open a new topic and you can freely discuss it. I think that this is okay answer from a sneaky Venetian provocateur? Mikola22 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)