The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Christopher Columbus was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Central America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Central AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Central AmericaCentral America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. (2010), Spanish immigration to Cuba: Christopher Columbus, Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar, Spanish people, VDM Publishing House{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Regarding this edit which removed mention of Diego Columbus, Columbus's adopted Lucayan son, with an edit summary that says, "unlikely to be a key fact about the biography... ": This Diego Columbus is notable. If he doesn't deserve even a mention in the Christopher Columbus article, then where in hell does he get a mention? It's as if Natives are being marginalized in their own country and their memory erased "all over again" in perpetuity, even on WP. Carlstak (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it totally clear that I am not trying to erase this from history or his life. I just want to make sure it's substantiated the right way. If I overstepped and erasure would be what it means in practice, then I sincerely apologize for that and won't get in the way further. I just wasn't sure, since I haven't read much about this aspect of Columbus's biography before. Remsense ‥ 论04:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate that, like all such material in the infobox, it is necessary that it be pointing to material in the article body. I don't know what the history is with an addition to this effect, but it needs to line up in the end. Remsense ‥ 论04:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will write up some text and add it to the article. You should read Lucayan Legacies: Indigenous lifeways in The Bahamas and Turks and Caicos Island, pp. 314–316, a source cited in the article, and learn about him, but you don't seem interested. A shame. Carlstak (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the recommendation. I am interested, and am a little sad that you would assume otherwise. If he's to be, I just want to make sure he's represented properly and unimpeachably, like I said. Remsense ‥ 论04:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to contribute something. I am very bad with perfectionism though, so I may force myself to deliver something even if it's short or incomplete, but that's because I don't want to deliver nothing at all. Remsense ‥ 论05:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I am pathologically perfectionist, but finally found a profession in which that is an advantage. Of course I never attain it, but my work is immeasurably better because I try. I get many plaudits, but know that secretly my audience thinks 'the artist' is insane. They may be right.;-) I have to go to bed now so I can get up early and deal with a client, but I will attend to this tomorrow. Anything you can do will be appreciated, I have faith. Carlstak (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a largely lateral (that is, unnecessary) series of changes to me too, with the sole exception of merging five paragraphs into four, though that's not a huge deal here even though we generally aim for four. (It's not fun to be reverted, but it's pretty symmetrical in cases like these. One sees the edit going one way as an improvement, another sees the inverse as true.)Remsense ‥ 论03:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just moving things around preferentially. We also explained the personification and eliminated a list of links to places not currently discussed in the article body. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the changes are an improvement. However the phrasing of the introduction (Increased public awareness of these interactions has led to Columbus being less celebrated in Western culture, which has historically idealized him as a heroic discoverer.) still subsumes the central role of Columbus in the United States national imaginarium (which started in the late 18th century and not before) with a "historical idealization" (possibly erroneously presumed to be particularly relevant in continuous fashion from his death forward) in Western Culture. While current wording does not state nothing plainly wrong, Columbus was central to the US myth, starting in the late 18th century, and he was not necessarily so much relevant either before the 18th century or to other "Western culture" imaginaries, let alone in "Western Culture" (if we take this construct as a good one) as "a whole". Other perspectives may include other early Criollo perspective from other countries from the Americas (Latin American countries, arguably as "Western" from a cultural standpoint as the US although some disagree), with its own nuances, or European countries such as Spain (in which perhaps Columbus was not strongly used as a national symbol until perhaps the 400th anniversary in 1892). I thus think that specifying the subject's idealization in the US national myth (with the accompanying chronology) in the introduction is preferable to the subject's generic and undated idealization in "Western Culture". In blunt terms, the explicit centering of Columbus' legacy in terms of its symbolic role in the United States is preferable to the implicit framing of "Western Culture" through an American (US) point of view, even if the former left out other different Western perspectives about Columbus.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Asqueladd. To forestall objections from possible dissenters, perhaps we could say, "Increased public awareness of these interactions has led to Columbus being less celebrated" with the full stop, without specifying "Western Culture" as you say, and without specifying the US either. Carlstak (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have corrected the introduction because there is an anachronism in confusing the geographical location with the historical figure. Columbus never wrote or spoke in Italian. It is correct to say that ancient Genoa is part of present-day Italy, but it is not the same to say that Columbus was Italian. It is similar to saying that Cleopatra spoke Arabic or was part of the current Egyptian state simply because she was from Ancient Egypt. She was born in Alexandria (today Egypt). I am correcting this anachronism in the introduction Pipo1955 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Search the talk archives for "Italian", and you will find the reams of discussion establishing consensus for the present wording. Please engage with that before making future edits or proposals. Remsense ‥ 论21:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. In this discussion, the issue is not whether the majority of historians believe that Columbus was born in Genoa, on the Italian peninsula, but rather how this information is presented in the Wikipedia introduction, which is anachronistic and erroneous because Columbus was not Italian by nationality. Simplifying in the article that he was Italian because he was born on the Italian peninsula, or because users might better understand it that way, has not been justified. There is abundant literature stating that Columbus never spoke or wrote in Italian. Genoese, which did not have a written form, was very similar to spoken Latin. While Italian originates from the Florentine language. I believe that this historical figure should not be treated differently from other historical figures. No one says that Cleopatra spoke Arabic or had the nationality of the Egyptian state, as is done with Columbus, claiming he was Italian Pipo1955 (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense In a bold display of audacity, a user presented original research that served as the argument to claim that 90% of encyclopedias stated he was Italian. How could original research be accepted as evidence? Wikipedia:No original research
One of the main encyclopedias does not state this either:
Not going to engage with this until you engage with the talk page history, not just tendentiously cherrypicking from it because you would like to get your way. Remsense ‥ 论01:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link you point to lists him as "Italian Explorer", so this statement appears to be incorrect. Beyond that, how do you determine that the reason they list him as "Italian" is simply because of the fact that Genoa is now contained within the present day state of Italy? That would seem to be concluding something which is not there. If you think it is an obvious conclusion, however, add the Britannica reference as a citation (as I think it once was) and readers can decide for themselves. A15730 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The designation “Italian” was not agreed on due to the language Columbus spoke; that is a red herring. It’s doubly a red herring because Ligurian is generally considered to be a dialect, not a distinct language, of the Gallo–Italian umbrella language. Quibbling over language vs dialect, when there is no clear distinction, isn’t going to help readers understand anything. Strebe (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Strebe Then, please explain the reasoning behind claiming that Columbus is "Italian" if he is not, just because he is from the "Italian Peninsula"? Pipo1955 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that Columbus is not Italian in the sense we understand today, as Italians, but because he is from the Italian Peninsula. I am simply suggesting that this needs to be clarified in the introduction, as the term "Italian" is being used in a geographical sense (link). Or is there another reason for his identity? If so, it should be clearly stated. Christopher Columbus neither spoke nor ever wrote in Italian. Pipo1955 (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lies with the footnote, as the reference does not support it. Britannica uses "Genoa [Italy]", so who exactly claims that "Italian" is the "Latin equivalent"?
"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 Genoa."
There is an inconsistency between the reference and the claim made in the footnote, as the reference does not support the statement. Pipo1955 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consistent with this consensus, it should be noted that the term "Italic" in English is less ambiguous than "Italian" and more accurately reflects that Columbus had origins in the Italian Peninsula, which is the geographical meaning of the term in Latin. This contrasts with the modern national sense of "Italian", which is the primary contemporary usage. My point is straightforward: the consensus pertains to the geographical meaning, and this should be clearly reflected in the text, either through the use of the term "Italic" or a hyperlink to Italian peninsulaPipo1955 (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other alternative, which follows this same consensus, is even clearer, as it places the geographical entity of Genoa within the geographical context of the Italian Peninsula: "the Republic of Genoa a former Italian State". This issue of attributing the geographical identity of the Italic Peninsula, not to another geographical entity like Genoa, but to a human person such as Christopher Columbus, is what causes this deviation from the logical use of language and creates confusion in the text. Pipo1955 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Columbus may have been a dick, but he was not a peninsula
Does this edit linking “Italian” to “Italian peninsula” make sense? Wouldn’t the proper link be Italians? There it explains that people from the Italian geographical regions, 'including Ligurians', are Italians. Strebe (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which goes for the existing link. Do you have a better argument? And if a reliable source states that Ligurians are Italians, would you accept that without further debate? And how does it make sense to link to a geography as a description of a person, particularly when there is already a link to people who are from that geography? Strebe (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of links, I think "Italians" makes the most sense, then "Italy (geographical region)", and then "Italian peninsula". The explanation that Ligurians are Italians is of less importance in my mind than showing that Italian explorers such as Columbus, Cabot, Vespucci, etc. were linked by common traits despite being from different republics. A15730 (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Brutality section of the article, citation 318 is a published work by Bill Bigalow called "Columbus Day must be abolished". It says that historian Bill Davidson assigns responsibility to Columbus for African slave trade to the American continent in 1501. Yet, it's well-known (even here on Wikipedia) that the Portuguese were the first to transport Africans across the Atlantic. In 1525, they completed the first transatlantic African slave voyage to Brazil. Columbus died in 1506. He wasn't responsible for what the Portuguese did 19 years after his death. The Spaniards, English, French, Danish, and Dutch, followed what the Portuguese did regarding the transatlantic African slave trade to the American continent. Citation 318 is an erroneous one. D.Gormade (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. An individual can bear responsibility for precipitating events that they did not directly participate in. Remsense ‥ 论18:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with D.Gormade. Certainly people can retroactively bear responsibility, but on the continuum of “this reminds me of that” and “this caused that”, I find Basil Davidson’s proclamation to be more guilty-of-everything-bad-because-guilty-of-lots-bad than guilty-by-cause. On the other hand, the citation is notable, and the wording permits the user to decide for themselves whether the blame makes sense. I guess I’ve talked myself out of wanting it removed. Strebe (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, as the concrete throughline is fairly clear. Columbus immediately began the enslavement of indigenous Americans in earnest, and the inadequacies of that very same arrangement, passed hand to hand directly from Columbus himself, expressly precipitated the introduction of enslaved Africans to compensate. If this were any other series of economic events, it would not be controversial to assign some blame to the originator of the flawed system for the later developments as such. Remsense ‥ 论20:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the line as currently written describes Basil Davidson as a "British historian" while the citation 218 describes him as an "African historian". The rest of the sentence claiming that he does this because of the actions of de Ovando doesn't even appear, and, so, must either be in the other references or is a synthesis. I don't like the use of 218 because 1. It is an opinion piece from a newspaper which seems a poor source for a subject so many books have been written on. 2. The opinion piece relies too much on weak references itself, even though it doesn't appear to name them. e.g. The claim, "Columbus ordered that Tainos be “punished,” by having their hands chopped off" likely comes from Zinn, who copied it from Koning, who appears to have fabricated it by synthesis. That said, I think it's indisputable that many people blame Columbus for the slave trade. So, I'd say keep it but check to make sure it's in the other references. A15730 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davidson is a British historian of Africa; this article is not about the Portuguese enslavement of Africans; there's no reason I see to assign the provenance of the hand-chopping's claim to Zinn. Remsense ‥ 论21:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply going by the cited reference's wording "African historian Basil Davidson". It doesn't describe him as British though I am not denying that he is. For the hand-chopping, Davidson is not making that claim, the author of the opinion piece Bill Bigelow, is. Bigelow is described as co-director of the Zinn Education Project. That's why I think he likely got it from Zinn. In any event, it still appears to originally come from Koning and there is no reliable source for it as far as I know. Hence, why I think it is a poor citation, especially when I'm sure that a higher quality reference expressing the same thing can be cited. A15730 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. As I said, the article claim being made (i.e. That many people regard Columbus as the father of the slave trade) can certainly be substantiated. Best Regards. A15730 (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ Remsense. No. A person cannot bear responsibility for precipitating events that they did not directly participate in. By the 15th century, the Al-Andalus Iberians (Spanish and Portuguese) were active in African slave trade in Europe. The Portuguese slave traders conducted African slave trade during 1441-1444. That's 51-54 years before Columbus' first voyage to the American continent in 1492. Columbus died 14 years later in 1506. The first African slaves were brought to the American continent by the Iberians in 1525. The Iberians had been well-seasoned in the slave trade of Africans 84 years before they transported the African slaves to the American continent. Columbus did not initiate the Al-Andalus Iberians African slave trade in Europe and America. D.Gormade (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, your general position as initially stated is not considered tenable by any relevant authority in the history of ethics as a discipline. Remsense ‥ 论01:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ Remsense. Hahaha. You are comically in the dark and inadvertently funny. But you are those things with such perfection. Your giftedness for waxing poetic is definitely there. It's just not verbose enough. Try harder! D.Gormade (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A15730. You should read up on slavery. The ancient Egyptians were doing it. Calling Columbus the father of slave trade is a gross misnomer. African slaves were being brought to Europe in the 15th century by the Al-Andalus Iberians and, thereafter, to the American continent by the same people. In 1441-1444, the Portuguese were already conducting African slave trade in Europe. That's 51-54 years before Columbus' first voyage to the American continent in 1492. Columbus died in 1506. In 1525, 19 years after Columbus' death, the Portuguese brought the first African slaves to the American continent. The Spaniards, British, French, Danish, and Dutch followed the trend. Columbus did not have African slaves. He had Indian slaves. So did the Iberians, English, etc. The Iberians and the English were the worst offenders of African and Indian slaves. D.Gormade (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
