Talk:Christopher Columbus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeChristopher Columbus was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 29, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2004, August 3, 2004, January 4, 2005, March 15, 2005, January 4, 2006, October 12, 2006, October 12, 2007, October 12, 2011, and October 12, 2013.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Language Accuracy re: "discovery" of Americas[edit]

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

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

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

The reversion User:Lashask refers to is this, almost exactly a year ago. The editor who is no longer on Wikipedia refers to me. I'm retired, in the sense that I have for the moment given up active maintenance (and my edits have dropped by an order of magnitude), but I'm not actually gone, yet. Looking back at the edits, I still find they reflect POV-pushing (that is, violate WP:NPOV). I'll respond to any comments here. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully I've fixed the problem. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I find the drive to remove "discovery" as POV-pushing. There is no question that at the time (and until very recently), his achievements were considered discoveries. A current search of the article (after today's changes) now uses the term only in the titles of cited references. The notable presence of the term in the title of several different cited references, combined with a notable absence in the article itself indicates we aren't following our cited references. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Use of "discovery" in Christopher Columbus[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I do not think we should be bending over backwards to avoid the term, but I am also not sure it is essential to use it. Could you provide an instance in the current text where you think it would be appropriate to use the word "discovery"? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought at first that discovery of the route would be OK, but one does not really "discover" a route. One uses a route for the first time for example. Like, if I use an underground tunnel to the market, and nobody else has ever done that, did I discover the route? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I would say yes, you did, if no one was previously aware that you could travel to the market through the underground tunnel. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Italian[edit]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020[edit]

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

 Done Next time, please cite any reliable sources and provide an explanation for your request. However, this request was trivial enough for that. {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}PLEASE copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 04:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Why would that need references or any more explanation than was given? Don’t we want to encourage people to be helpful? Thanks for servicing the request, and thanks to the IP editor for noticing the embarrassing solecism and acting on it. Strebe (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)