Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Pliny in intro

The note regarding the use of "Italian" cites Pliny as proof that the term Italian had been in use since ancient times. This is pretty obvious OR, as nobody could plausibly argue that Pliny is a reliable source for this claim. The question of whether "Italian" is an appropriate term to use does not need to be justified in any case, so I have removed that as a bold edit. I am sure better sourcing could be found, but is it necessary to include the claim at all? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The footnote was added in response to the claim that the term Italian didn't exist until Garibaldi. It obviously didn't do anything useful, probably the entire footnote should be removed. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The footnote us useful, in the sense that it stops people from thinking Columbus was Italian in the sense that we use the word today. Calling Columbus an Italian is a massive anachronism, but if we are going to do it, we do need to specify that he wasn't a citizen of a country called Italy because it didn't exist. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Garcia de Resende in 1530 is anachronistic? "Christouao Colombo, italiano", written almost 500 years ago (see above). I think what you are trying to say is that what we mean by "Italian" today and what they meant by "Italian" then are not the same. That's certainly true, but that's also true for every other grouping you can think of. A lot of history since the 1400s. Tarl N. (discuss) 10:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the term was used, but there are far more contemporary references to Columbus as Genoese than as Italian. I think calling him an Italian in this article is a serious mistake, but whatever the case, the mention of Pliny is clearly out of place. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The Garcia de Resende is in Portugese, so I think it's important to take that quote in context, which is that someone who was foreign to the region of Southern Europe that Genoa was in, and who spoke a language with a heritage in Latin, would have a word for Italia and Italian based on the Roman designation of that region as Italia, but it's a generalization that doesn't have the power to confer identity, nationality or ethnicity. The same is true of the other Portugese quotes. The quote from the Flemish author given appears to come from a document in Latin, so the use of Italia would have a context to the Roman usage, and it also includes a more specific reference to Colombus' Genoese identity.

It's also notable that those quotes from the Portugese and Flemish sources were not the citation for "Italin" but Pliny the Elder was. Those Portugese and Flemish sources came up in a talk discussion from 2009, and the status of "Italian," "Genoese" or neutral language has changed repeatedly in the years since and the issue has been contraversial until the present.

The best scholarship that I can find so far to establish nationality and ethnicity:

1. The 1479 document from the City Archives of Genoa that docuement Columbus as "civis janue," "Genoese citizen." It's the most contemporary document to his life, and an important document already documented elsewhere on Wikipedia and is one of two documents used to establish the birthdate already given in this article.

2. Bartolomeo de Las Casas, whose father Diego was part of Columbus' second expedition, who crossed paths with Columbus and Columbus' son Diego, and is one of the key primary source historians of Columbus. In the Historia de las Indias (1527-1560), de Las Casas writes about Columbus in chapter 11: "this illustrious man was of Genoese nation, from somewhere in the province of Genoa."

3. This book: Tufi, S., & Blackwood, R. J. (2016). The linguistic landscape of the Mediterranean: French and Italian coastal cities. Springer. discusses Genoese Ligurian identity as being distinct from Italian identity (nationally, culturally,linguistically and ethnically), especially during the Republic of Genoa, but also persisting through history to the present.

I see these sources as being much closer to the subject of inquiry, closer to contemporary events, and speaking more to what Columbus' origins of identity in his nationality and ethnicity were.

In terms of the reasoning that that is also true for other groupings, especially related to Europe, that is an issue that different Wikipedia pages have dealt with in different ways, but I find the pages that are more specific to be more informative, and the pages that are more vague and general to lead to needing to seek out books that give more detail of the history in order to understand the complexity of languages and political entities pre-20th century. I think it's better to err on the side of more information, more specificity, because generalization and vagueness is a dead end for curiosity, exploration and deeper understanding. SiciliaOliva (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This relates to the Pliny the Elder source, but is illustrative of the larger issue being discussed as well.

It's interesting, looking comparing the Columbus Wikipedia to the pages of those who lived in independent republics and city-states in the region that is now Italy, in between the fall of the Roman Empire and the unification of the Kingdom of Italy:

Marco Polo is currently referred to as Venetian.

Dante Alighieri: Looking at the edit history, he is referred to as Florentine as recently as October 2021... but what's more, the reference that is currently used to cite that "Dante is an Italian poet..." etc., is Pliny the Elder, using the exact language that was used in the Columbus article that I pointed out to be a weak reference.

The Dante article still says this, word for word the same as the Columbus footnote you changed: "Though the modern Republic 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." Then cites Pliny the Elder to establish that.

Looking at the edit history for both pages, this footnote was added to the Columbus page in July 2021, and the Dante page in October 2021, indicating it may have been cut and pasted from one to another.

Let the community keep this in mind when citing the Dante page as precedent for why people who lived in independent republics should be referred to as "Italian"":

- the Columbus page used this questionable citation and reasoning before the Dante page, it may have been cut and pasted from one to the other.

- this has been a contested issue with both pages, the current status is not settled precedent dates to the second half of 2021.

- no consensus appears on the talk pages, Dante's talk page includes period citations where Dante refers to himself as "florentinus natione." SiciliaOliva (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As I explained up page, Columbus was in the service of Spain and would've been most commonly identified as "Italian" by contemporaries in Spain -something linked to his notability. Seville had large communities of Genoese, Florentine and Venetian merchants and financiers who were instrumental in Spain's expansion overseas. They came from states across Northern Italy and were more frequently referred to as simply "Italians", rather than by distinctions in dialect or state of origin, which were not immediately obvious to ethnic Spaniards. The point about Dante or Marco Polo is irrelevant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

All of the debate can simply be avoided if people familiarize themsleves with the WP:ETHNICITY guideline, which stipulates that lead header should mention a subject's nationality, and not ethnicity. Thus according to the Wikipedia guidelines it should be stated that he was Genoese, not Italian. However, it also says that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted", which is also an option here. For example, Columbus was an explorer and navigator from the Republic of Genoa. Machinarium (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That guideline makes it pretty clear it applies to ...In most modern-day cases... Tarl N. (discuss) 21:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Please scroll down to see examples for how it applies to historic subjects, including someone from Columbus' day and age, because the solutions are uniform. Machinarium (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this is obviously a case where nationality should be omitted because it is "controversial or unclear". Take a look at the Copernicus example cited in WP:ETHNICITY. Glendoremus (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the Italian notation in the lead leaving, as it should be, its Genoese origin. It seems clear to me that we are not discussing here whether Columbus was born and raised in Italy, but whether the label of Italian can be applied to him. So here we have a general problem, about everyone who was born in Italy at that time. When was Italian identity born? There are specialised works on this subject, for example Galli della loggia's book 'L'identità italiana', or the first volume of Einaudi's history of Italy 'I caratteri originali'. A good online source is enciclopedia treccani, and there you will see that the generally accepted thesis in Italian historiography is that the Italian nation began to form between the 11th and 12th centuries. Since Columbus lived between the 15th and 16th centuries, we can call him Italian, just as Michelangelo, Leonardo, Giovanni delle Bande Nere, Savonarola, Antonello can be called Italian. Why then are there at regular intervals these debates on the nationality of Columbus while, to cite another case in point, the Saxon monk Martin Luther, who is in a similar position on wikipedia, is peacefully referred to as 'German'? One of our politicians, Giulio Andreotti used to say that to think evil is a sin, but one often gets it right. My opinion after 17 years spent here on English wikipedia participating in debates like this one above, is that behind so many words there are often two drivers: total ignorance of Italy and its culture, and racism towards us Italians. Alex2006 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Allesandro57. There is no racism involved here, please assume good faith. There is a simple WP:ETHNICITY guideline which states that an article header should not start with someones ethnicity. It should start with someones nationality (i.e. the state of which they were a subject), unless its problematic in which case neither ethnicity nor nationality are mentioned. The guideline should apply to every article. That there are articles where this is ignored is no argument to also ignore it here. Machinarium (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am one of those who has long defended “Italian” because I believe that “Italian” means something to practically all modern readers, whereas “Genoese” does not. However, I was unaware of the WP:ETHNICITY policy that User:Machinarium cited. Reading it carefully, I really do not see scope for interpreting “Italian” to be the right choice here. It bothers me to just end first mention with “Republic of Genoa” because, again, I think a lot of modern readers wouldn’t know what that was. Hence, I would prefer “from the Republic of Genoa, now part of Italy” (for example). But if, for some reason, it must be one or the other, Genoese what I read the policy to require. Policies are supposed to shut down these endless arguments. Yes, exceptions are allowed by consensus, but exception should only happen if there is something clearly special about the situation such that a literal application of the policy would defeat the purpose for the policy. That’s not this case. Strebe (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please Read the inscription on the building

OK, in your case I will assume good faith (for now ;-)). Look, I know that guideline perfectly well, and I have discussed it dozens of times. You have to read the whole thing, not the first paragraph. At the end it says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability." Clearly it is relevant in the case of Columbus, as it is in the case of all the other Italian navigators (Venetians, Genoese, Tuscans, Anconetans, Amalfitans). The art of sailing at that level was a general characteristic of Italians at that time, and part of the Italian culture. P.S. I don't like the author of the inscription at all, but the sentence renders what I explained. Alex2006 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Note that I apply WP:ETHNICITY everywhere, not just for Italians. Anyway sailing was not uniquely Italian at the time. I think saying this was some kind of unique Italian quality is in favour of Italian nationalism, and in no way warrants us to ignore the editorial guideline. Machinarium (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not even art is a unique characteristic of Renaissance Italians, but they excelled and it is part of their culture, exactly as sailing. That is why Michelangelo is called Italian, and not Florentine. It's the same with the art of navigation. The definition serves to frame the person in question in a culture, and there is consensus that in 15th-16th century in Italy there was a common culture. Nationalism has nothing to do with it, that Columbus was Italian is a fact, and it depends on the definition of Italian. According to the same definition, Marco Polo cannot be defined as Italian, because at that time the Italian identity was in the making. BTW, using Plinius to define who is Italian is crap: this is an index of nationalism (or worse), and it's another example of how people who don't have the slightest idea of the subject write here.Alex2006 (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines are quite clear on it that the lead should not start with someone's culture or identity, but with someone's nationality or subjecthood. There can be exceptions when a historic figure was a nationalist activist, for example, but Columbus was notable for his sailing and discoveries, not his supposed Italianness. Thus per the guidelines the article should start with him being Genoese, not Italian. But this appears to offend people such as you. The guidelines then state the right thing to do is just leave his nationality out. Hence I came up with a compromise to say he was from the Republic of Genoa on the Italian coast. All further details about culture or Italian context can go somewhere else in the article (maybe), but not in the lead header. Machinarium (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I see you still don't understand what I've explained, so I think it's best to wait for someone else's input at this point. In the meantime, since you say you apply this guideline to all articles, I look forward to seeing you do the same in the Johannes Gutenberg or Martin Luther articles, so we can widen the debate to the German nation as well. Alex2006 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you are open to compromise, and I see that you've now only asked Italian editors to comment on this page, which is not how WP:RFC is supposed to work (see also WP:CAN). And there's plenty of articles where historic figures are called German where they shouldn't, I can't comment on all of them though. Machinarium (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that you once again don't understand (or pretend not to understand): here there is no compromise to be made, it is only necessary to decide how the guideline should be interpreted. Regarding the people I invited, one is an Italian, and he is a very competent user, the other is not Italian, and is one of the users with the most experience in the field of Italian art, and has already participated in various discussions on this guideline (and I don't know if he will have the will to engage in the same discussion for the hundredth time). Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I can only explain the situation: on English wikipedia we have several thousands of articles dedicated to Italians who lived before 1861, with the adjective "Italian" in the lead. All these articles are perfectly stable, and although the vast majority of reference works describe these people as Italians, occasionally someone like you comes along (and strangely always on articles about little-known people: Vespucci, Leonardo, etc. and now Columbus. None goes to change the ethnicity of Chiorbone da Frittole) and makes them unstable. Edit wars, noticeboards, or "compromises" which just make the article worse (see above). This will be your only result here. In the meantime, I'm waiting for your edits on Luther and Gutenberg (these two will be enough), so we can start threads there too, hoping to clarify this story once and for all. Alex2006 (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this article where there has been discussion for years about whether Columbus should be introduced as Genoese or Italian, and the guidelines are quite clear on it that in controversial cases both should simply be left out. This is not an interpretation of the guideline, it's as clear as sky. It is exactly meant to introduce stability and stop prolonged discussions. If you want extra input, the WP:MOSBIO is the place to go to. And yes, some people care about anachronisms and primordialism creeping into articles on historical figures. For me that's no different for Germans, and there's plenty of examples where 'German' has been a controversial. When asking others to discuss those instead you're simply trying to change the subject. Machinarium (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no controversy here since the vast majority of sources, such as Britannica and others, use the term Italian. I do not see a change in the consensus yet, so please don’t change the page until this discussion is overz Eccekevin (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello EcceKevin. Even if the "vast majority" of sources use 'Italian', this doesn't change anything since it's not a zero-sum-game (i.e. he can referred to as both Genoese and Italian without there being a contradiction). The fact is that both Genoese and Italian are popular enough terms to be used on Wikipedia (I get thousands of results on Google Books when searching for "Genoese explorer", "Genoese Navigator", etc.). There's clear editorial guidelines that states the lead header of a biography should favour nationality over ethnicity, which unfortunately you haven't addressed. If we care about editorial guidelines, we have to pick between introducing him as 'Genoese' or introducing him without his nationality. (P.S., Britannica is a tertiary source, which is something Wikipedia should generally not be relying on (see WP:PSTS)). Machinarium (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We do not have consensus. Columbus was referred to by at least some contemporaneous authors as "Italian". Similarly, Salieri, working in Austria, was referred to in Austria as an "Italian" composer (rather than Venetian). Bach (JS, CPE, ...) were all German. The WP:ETHNICITY mostly abjures describing people as black, asian, semitic, and similar. The use of Italian, German, Spanish at the time referred to regions of Europe, most of which had their geographic descriptive origins dating back to the Roman Republic. And continued in common use for millennia afterwards. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

When I read MOS:ETHNICITY the guideline does not appear to be limited to notions race, there's clear talk of ethnicity there too. And unless I misunderstand you, using milennial-old geographic descriptions for historic individualds sounds like embracing primordialism, which is highly anachronistic. And you're right, there is no concensus, just like there was no concensus to call Copernicus German (even though a contemporary source referred to him as such), resulting in a lead header in which his nationality was left out. Hence, though I am in favour for the more precise Genoese adjective, I did not add 'Genoese' but simply removed 'Italian'. Machinarium (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I think we have gone around the circus on this enough times and for long enough that if you insist, it's time for one of the WP:DR resolutions - probably WP:RFC. Which will get us a circus of a wiki-wide popularity contest, but at least will put this to rest for a few months. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If that's going to trigger a popularity contest then surely Italian patriotism will prevail. It would be different if today there was still a Genoese republic, but there is not. Anyway, if that's the way Wikipedia works, then why are there editorial guidelines? Surely the debate should then be about changing the guideline, and not just one case study. Machinarium (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the guidelines can be misinterpreted. Which I think you have. So, WP:DR. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Contentious changes are often such because the guidelines don't necessarily fit. Ultimately, on Wikipedia, consensus is king. It seems as 'Italian' has been the consensus on the page for a long time, and since changing it is contentious, to secure a new consensus you would have to do WP:DR, most likely a RfC. I personally do not see a reason to omit it, since the vast majority of sources use it. Eccekevin (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If concensus is king then let's read WP:CONCENSUS, it is explained quite well that disagreements are not supposed to be ended simply with majority view, but that editorial guidelines and quality of arguments should be decisive. And when you say that 'Italian' has been the concensus for a long time you leave out something important, which is that over the years there have been many users who've tried to make changes but who've been scolded for it, sometimes in a patronising manner. Machinarium (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I briefly re-enter the discussion, partly because I seem to be the only Italian here. First of all I thank @Eccekevin: and @Tarl N.: for having the patience to explain how the guideline about Ethnicity works, I have not been able to. What is not clear to many wikipedians here is that Italian identity predates the unitary state by several centuries. Italian identity, and the Italian nation began to form between the 11th and 12th centuries, by the time of Columbus it was already fully formed. There is no debate about this, it has been an acquired fact for decades: above I have provided two references (the first volume of Einaudi's Storia d'Italia, "I caratteri originari," and "Identità Italiana," which is a volume by Galli della Loggia) and a link to it from the Encyclopedia Italiana, but I could bring many more. In Fascist times, attempts were made for nationalistic reasons to pass off Romans as Italians, but this is meaningless. This is the reasons why citing Pliny here is plain nonsense. In the case of Columbus, writing "Italian" in the lead makes sense, because it was the Italians of the maritime republics who gained dominion over the Mediterranean for centuries and revolutionized the technique of sailing. At the same time, these Italians were cosmopolitans, open to the world, unlike their colleagues from other nations, and so they went into the service of the Atlantic powers making the voyages of discovery we all know. Cosmopolitanism was a characteristic of the Italians of that time, and derives from two constituent features of modern Italian identity: The legacy of the Empire of Rome, and the millennial presence of the Catholic Church. Both of these superpowers entered overwhelmingly into the making of Italian identity. If politicians such as Mazzarino, scientists such as Cassini and Lagrange, artists such as Leonardo, Rastrelli and Bernini, generals such as Montecuccoli, and admirals such as Columbus and Vespucci (simply put, the members of the Italian elite) often sought their fortunes in Europe, it was precisely because of this Italian characteristic. Italy of those centuries for the reasons said before was a country ahead of all others by quite a bit from a cultural point of view, but just as far behind politically, and this delayed its unification by centuries. All this is said not only by nationalist historians, but also by intellectuals such as Gramsci (in the "quaderni dal Carcere"), who clearly was not a nationalist. Therefore, those who say that Columbus should be described only as a Genoese, as if he were a contemporary Leghist, commit an anachronism possibly caused by their lack of knowledge in the subject. Of course, in the lead we must also mention his Genoese nationality, but Italian and Genoese are not antithetical, but complementary here. Alex2006 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with you that they can be complentary. And I'm familiar with the very interesting history of the Italian renaissance (which also influenced the history of the Low Countries where I'm from). I'm not sure to what degree this is relevant to Columbus though. He wasn't a scientist, artist, or philosopher, but simply someone with a lot of cojones who dared to sail further west than anyone else before him (but correct me if I'm wrong). Machinarium (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I should also mention, in terms of reference to Italian identity, Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire). At least five centuries prior to the events we're talking about. So the fact that the Republic of Italy only dates back to Garibaldi (one of the earliest comments in this months-long ongoing back-and-forth), this provides a readily-available WikiReference to Italy as a regional designation which long predates the republic. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, you keep swinging the stick that WP:MOSBIO is so clear that there is no discussion and it, simply, is not. It says "... country, region, or territory...". The argument here is that both Italian and Genoese are correct as Italian is not simply an ethnic designation. Therefore, it is an editorial decision as someone previously pointed out. The analogy to Copernicus appears to fail because the two choices available there appear to be contradictory. A15730 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I raise WP:MOSBIO because it has been completely ignored here. And now that it no longer is, I only see creative ways to bend the guideline to still favour starting the article with a notion of his ethnic identity. Please note that I'm not advocating erasing any relation between Columbus and Italian culture or history, I'm just against replacing 'Genoese' everywhere with 'Italian' as if a 'Genoese' nationality is historically incorrect and 'Italian' is always superior. Anyway, on Wikipedia there are more examples where nationality and ethnicity are not contradictory, but then still nationality goes first — see for example a massive list of Prussians[1]. Machinarium (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Italian is not necessarily an ethnic label, nor solely a citizinship. Ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, culture, etc... are very muddled, especially in premodern times. Technically, the Republic of Genoa was part of the Holy Roman Empire, so should his nationality be German? Holy Roman Emperorese? Roman? No, we cannot apply modern standards and treat Genoese as we would modern Icelandic or Papua Nuova Guinean. Guidelines exist, but they often break down, especially for ancient figures. We sometimes apply labels that would have have been recognized by the subjects themselves, such as Byzantine or Celt. In this case, the sources and consensus for a long time have favored Italian. A new consensus can emerge, but very strong arguments are needed, and I see none so far. MOSBIO is an imperfect guideline and not geared towards historical characters. Guidelines as just that, guidelines, which are used to orient the consensus in each page, but talk page consesus is king. As it stands, the page uses both Italian and Genoese, and never claims the existence of a unitary Italian state nor nationality, so I see no issue with the current page Eccekevin (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You say this article uses both Italian and Genoese, but that's not actually the case. Starting the article with Italian instead of Genoese creates confusion, since the norm on Wikipedia is to start a biography with someones nationality (i.e. state(s) that they are associated with). The Republic of Genoa was a powerful polity in its time, its inhabitants are rightly referred to as Genoese on the Wikipedia page for this republic, thus a notable figure from this republic was also Genoese. All of its inhabitants can also be described as 'Italian', but this does not concern nationality since it did not exclusively refer to the Republic of Genoa, and is therefore not what the article should start with. All references to Italian culture or Italian uniqueness can follow after nationality (if relevant). As for your argument that Columbus was too ancient for MOSBIO to apply, that's plainly incorrect as it lists Copernicus from the same era as an example. Of course the early modern period more often had unclear political entities, but the Republic of Genoa was quite the opposite, and using 'Genoese' does not create any type of confusion whatsoever. Respecting editorial guidelines is a part of concensus building, so I contest that there is clear consensus for not allowing Genoese nationality. Machinarium (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Hallo @Machinarium: the culture that defines a nation on a purely cultural basis, such as the Italian one (and this was even understood by Mussolini, who invented a "cultural racism" to oppose the biological racism of the Nazis) does not only include the classic categories that you cite 'scientist, artist, or philosopher,' There are also 'technicians' like Colombo. Columbus was not just any navigator. Before attempting the voyage west, he had already sailed around the entire Mediterranean and had already reached beyond Iceland, as Las Casas writes. He was part of the navigational elite. To do things like this, it is not enough to have 'two balls like that', as they say in Rome, one has to have the technical knowledge to correspond with a Toscanelli (in Latin, the language of science at the time) and use his charts, one has to be able to negotiate with the Florentine bankers in Seville to get financed, one has to have the diplomatic skills to sell his ideas to the sovereigns of Portugal and Castile. Balls are not enough for that. This is done by those who are part of an elite. Excuse me for quoting Gramsci again: If 'Italian statesmen, captains, admirals, scientists, navigators did not have a national but a cosmopolitan character', this was the result of a 'precocious' cultural development against a political 'delay': 'to have a European function, this is the character of Italian 'genius' from the 15th century to the French revolution'. 'genius' in Gramsci is synonimous with elite. And the secular drama of Italy has been that the Italian nation for centuries has been a 'high' nation, a nation made only of elites. Passing to Genoa, it is essential to mention his Genoese origin in the lead. Italy is a territory structured on an extreme polycentrism, based on cities and then on what are now provinces. Columbus would not have been what he was if he had not been born in Liguria. It is the two maritime republics of Genoa and Venice that have represented the projection of Italy on the sea, for both of them the eastern Mediterranean and the Levant, in the case of Genoa later also the Iberian peninsula (Genoese bankers in the 1500s became the masters of the Spanish empire). And it is precisely the ignoring of this polycentrism at the time of national unification, which occurred, among other things, not starting from a strong center, as in other European cases, but from the extreme periphery, which caused the rift between the pre-unitary Italian identity and today's national identity. After this flood of words ;-), going back to Columbus, in my opinion we should mention the nationality (Italian), the origin (Genoese) and - last but not least - for whom he worked (the king of Castile). Each of these three informations is important.

Hallo@Tarl N.:, The problem with the medieval Kingdom of Italy is that in the early Middle Ages there was an "Italian" state, but there were not yet the Italians. The Italian identity was not yet born, there was a state of transition between Roman and modern Italy. Alex2006 (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: I admire the passion you have for this subject, but there is one thing you're not getting right, which is the English definition of nationality. Simply explained, it refers to citizenship/subjecthood. The word is sometimes also conflated with national identity, causing misunderstandings. In the manual of style guidelines, however, it is clearly instructed that editors should try their best to introduce historic figures by their nationality as defined by citizenship/subjecthood. Thus on Wikipedia, as a rule, 19th century Germans from the Kingdom of Prussia are introduced as Prussians, regardless of how strongly German they may have felt. At the same time, they are still included in Wikipedia lists and categories of German people because Prussian and German are not necessarily contradictory. The same applies to Columbus or anyone else from the maritime republics. Hypothetically speaking, even if Columbus was born in the hayday of Italian nationalism and had nicknamed himself the Italian Stallion, he should still be introduced as Genoese (at least so long as the consensus remains that the Genoa republic is where he was from). This does not mean he disappears from the list of Italian people. Machinarium (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in further arguing, this particular round has been ongoing since last year. There is no consensus to change, if you intend to pursue this, please pursue dispute resolution. Normally I'd suggest WP:3O, but since this involves more than two individuals, I believe the only path forward is WP:RFC. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How did you conclude what the consensus is? Just by ignoring the Manual of Style guideline and simply counting which side that has most 'votes'? If so, since I introduced MOSBIO to the debate I count three users that came out in support of change versus four in support of no change, not a huge margin. User:Strebe has changed his opinion after learning about MOSBIO (that's also how it went for me a few years back actually). The easiest way to prevent prolonged discussions is abiding by Manual of Style guidelines, not relocating the discussion to WP:3O as you keep suggesting. And also to be open to creative solutions such as not mentioning any nationality in the lead. Machinarium (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How did you conclude what the consensus is? By the fact that this wall of text extends back to 6 December 2023. It's been argued up, down, left, right, .. and so forth into probably higher dimensions. Longer and longer arguments don't persuade anyone, all they accomplish is drive people away, see WP:BLUDGEON. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I thank you for your kind words, and you are right, consensus cannot be counted, but depends on the reasons one brings here. So, let's summarise a little my contributions:

• I have demonstrated the existence of an Italian nation in the 15th century (which I think was not very clear at first, because there are still people here who confuse Italy as a nation with Italy as a state);
• I have proved that Columbus belongs to this nation and is a very notable member of this nation (rebutting what you wrote, i.e. that the Italianness of Columbus was not notable);
• Because of the first two points, and the last sentence of the ethnicity guideline, I showed that it is allowed to define him Italian on the lead;
• As a bonus, I also demonstrated the need to mention his Genoeseness ;-) on the lead;

How did I prove this? With sources. You don't like my sources? Bring others of an opposite opinion. But be warned: Gramsci plays on your team, not mine, and if he, a communist (but certainly the greatest Italian intellectual of the 20th century), thinks that way about the Italian nation, the chance of finding sources on the other side that state the opposite is zero.

Until sources which refute mine are found or the guideline in question is changed (by deleting the last line) this discussion has reached its final point for me.

One last point: regarding the Prussians (I don't have time to explain the difference between 19th century Prussia and the Italian micro-states of the Renaissance) look at the article on Kant (not a Prussian, but an ultra-Prussian), and see how it starts. It can be a good model for the article on Columbus. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your sources Alessandro57, I'm disputing your reading of the guideline, which says quite clearly an article isn't supposed to start with the nation that the person belongs to but with their citizenship. There's many pages where this guidelines is ignored, including the Imannuel Kant page which should indeed also start with him being Prussian (or at least Prussian-born), just like all other Prussians.[2] The only difference is that the ignoring of the guideline for Columbus is at the root cause of years of debate. Machinarium (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I got an (edit conflict) and lost everything I had written. I just wanted to state my support here for all of Machinarium's and Strebe's arguments above in this thread. The national adjective Italian should not appear in the lede here in my view. I also think it may be a good idea to say somehow, as Strebe suggested, "...from the Republic of Genoa, which is now a part of Italy." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Machinarium's interpretation of the MOS seems correct to me. It seems to instruct us to either omit the contentious nationality or list their citizenship. If we omit nationality I think including the Republic of Genoa on the Italian coast language per Machinarium would be the best way to handle it. The MOS is pretty clear the main factor is citizenship. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@TulsaPoliticsFan:, I re-enter briefly only to say that there is no "contentious nationality" here. Until forty years ago there was discussion among academics about Columbus's nationality (and at that point I would certainly have supported the removal of nationality from the lead), since forty years it has been conclusively established that Columbus is Italian. If anyone knows of authoritative sources with new findings that dispute this information please bring them. In any case, I suggest you read my arguments above and, if necessary for you, challenge them. About the MOS, it is clear in the sense that for contemporaries and moderns citizenship applies, for ancients (i.e., before the existence of national states) nationality applies (read the last sentence of the Guideline in this regard, which strangely enough is systematically ignored). And now I disappear again, bye ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography Are you refering to , 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.? Because I do not see how it "clear" that "for ancients nationality applies" when it clearly lists citizen right before it lists national. If you're trying to reference MODERNPLACENAME, then that is for places that have changed names (see Instanbul/Constantinople) and not places like Genoa that still use the same name. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The arguments on this page with regards to the MOS are much stronger in favour of Genoese than Italian. When we are arriving at special pleading that "nationality" didn't really exist in the 15th century, and that, even though the MOS makes no mention of this, the MOS doesn't apply to ancients, I think it is time to say that consensus exists. At the moment, no arguments with any merit are being presented in favour of "Italian". Boynamedsue (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree that consensus has been reached. We have simply exhausted the conversation through months of walls of text. At this point, dispute resolution is needed. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How does that work? A higher authority makes the ultimate decision and we all have to accept it? Machinarium (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The only viable means of dispute resolution with multiple parties on both sides (as in this case) is WP:RFC. That means a request for comment is published, and the Wiki community at large will weigh in on the discussion. The discussion will be closed after a period of time (usually weeks), and the closer will evaluate whether there was a consensus. The reason for a wide-ranging RFC is to eliminate the bias from specialized interest groups dominating a discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I have created the RFC below. I'll add my comments below the initial creation to get things going. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

change Bartolomeo to Bartolomew StormyUltimatum (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The Genoese Colombo was not the Navigator Colón

The news out of Azores University is that a 7 member jury unanimously awarded a PhD in Insular and Atlantic History (XV-XX Centuries) to Manuel da Silva Rosa on April 12, 2023 for a work titled CRISTOFORO COLOMBO versus CRISTÓBAL COLÓN Cristoforo  Colombo, the weaver from Genoa, was not Don Crsitóbal Colón, the navigator from Ibéria and in his latest book, Portugal na História, Uma Identidade (Lisbon, 2023) Professor João Paulo Oliveira e Costa Department of History Chair at the University of Lisbon describes Rosa's work as scrupulous, "No estudo recente de Manuel Rosa, que, respeitando escrupulosamente as fontes, deixa clara a impossibilidade de Colón ter nascido no seio de uma família de tecelões genoveses.”. Who can add this information to the article?

WP:FRINGE. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

References

RFC: on qualifier Italian in Christopher Columbus lead

The biography of Christopher Columbus describes him as an Italian navigator. The question is whether that nationality should be removed as inappropriate. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This RFC relates to above discussions under Edit Request: Change Attribution of Columbus' Nationality from Italian to Genoese and Pliny in intro sections. The discussion has been going for over four months. The specifics I can call out:

• Originally, the request was the change Italian to Genoese. My opinion, is that while more precise, it is less meaningful to current readers. Many people will not know what Genoese means, while Italian is almost universally understood.
• The complaint was the Italy as such didn't exist in the 1400s, so we shouldn't describe Columbus as Italian. The counter has been made that Italia has been a concept understood throughout Europe since Roman times (hence the section title "Pliny in intro", where it was pointed out how long the term has been used). It subsequent discussion, references have been found showing he was referred to as Italian even by relatively contemporary authors.
• The policy WP:ETHNICITY has been brought up, and the example of Copernicus' nationality. I believe this is a red herring - Copernicus not listing a nationality is due to significant ambiguity. He probably thought of himself as Prussian, a nationality which no longer has any meaning. He would have been described as German by his contemporaries (people who were born in German-speaking households were considered German no matter where they were located), but he was born and lived in what is currently Polish territory. No such ambiguity exists with Columbus.

That's about it, let the formal discussion follow. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to start by suggesting that we first agree, in general terms, on how apparently Columbus viewed himself. That is, by first just agreeing in general terms how he might have viewed and thought of himself, without assigning to this potential agreement any weight so far in the final decision.

And, I suggest that we can agree that Columbus himself did not view or think of himself as either Italian and/or Genoese. I'd suggest he viewed himself as an independent navigator with his own plans about exploring the unknow seas to the west of Gibraltar. He certainly spoke well different languages, and he could manage very high-stakes geopolitical negotiations both in the Portuguese and in the Castilian courts. From everything that he and and his son wrote, and from all the sources used, is there agreement on this basic point so far? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree and wonder why we should address this issue if it has no bearing on the final decision. What is your basis for asserting that Columbus did not think of himself as "Italian and/or Genoese"? Historians have speculated that he was painfully aware of his humble origins and tooks care to obscure his background. Glendoremus (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not say by any means that it does not have any bearing on the decision. I just didn't want to specify the weight it would/could have on the decision. Since we agree that he may "have taken care to obscure his background" (for either the reasons you give, or perhaps for other political reasons?), one conclusion is clear: Columbus did not see or speak of himself ever as either "Italian and/or Genoese." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 22:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have started the !vote list, one of the distinguishing characteristics of an RFC, this helps the closer determine the broad outlines of consensus. I'll do that below. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Retention is recommended. Although Italy did not exist at the time, it was referred to as an Italian navigator in various accounts of later generations. In fact, this has become the consensus of the vast majority of people. If we are talking about his nationality, then it is not reasonable to use Italy. But if it's the title of the Italian navigator, I think it can be kept.악준동 (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Italian I initially thought we should go with Genoese as well, but we haven't listed Luther as Saxon, or Diego Velázquez as Granadian... let alone Da Vinci as Florentine, to stick with Italy. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose removal. THe term Italian is sufficiently accurate and descriptive to not need changing. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tarl N.:Just procedurally speaking, in it is not correct to include a long justification of your vote at the beginning of the RfC, and then include a separate vote here, I suggest moving your vote to the beginning and striking out this comment. Boynamedsue (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• My personal view is that "Genoese" is better than "Italian" in this case. There is legitimate debate over whether "Italian" is an accurate description of Columbus, but there is no disagreement from serious scholars with the term Genoese. No ethnic/national descriptor and "from the Republic of Genoa" would also be fine.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think that just "from the Republic of Genoa" (with no other qualifiers/adjectives) is better. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Genoese - ultimately this needs to be decided by the term used by most WP:RS, but I would expect that to be Genoese. 'Italian' may have existed as a term, but it would have been a broad 'ethnic' term, (a little like 'Hispanic') not a term of nationality. I find the 'people won't understand' argument very thin - explaining unfamiliar terms are what links (and WP itself) are for. Pincrete (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. It is sufficiently accurate, and of no detriment to the article. As his specifically Genoese background is brought up again and again in the rest of article, one is not being promoted at the cost of the other. Something is gained and nothing is lost by leaving this reminder in the lede. Particularly given his widespread recognizability and common reference as Italian in popular media and consciousness, lack of "Italian" somewhere in the lede would probably be WP:ASTONISHing to many readers. Someone will inevitably insert it again, and we'll be back here again. Leaving it there is all gain and no cost. Walrasiad (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@User:Tarl N.: I'd like to request clarification of the proposal. Is the proposal to leave the term "Italian navigator", that is expressing it once (and only once) in the lede of the article, and allow the of use "Genoese" everywhere else, or is it to replace "Genoese" with "Italian" everywhere in the article? If the latter, then I'd like to change my vote. Walrasiad (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue arose simply from the stated desire to remove "Italian" from the lede. I felt that was taking it too far. Generally, in the lede you want descriptors that will be readily understood by casual readers. As I mentioned several months ago, a comparable example is J.S. Bach - everyone will understand "German" (even though no German nation existed at the time), while the term "Eisenacher" or "Saxe-Eisenacher" will mean little. Genoese is a bit more recognizable, but still less so than the general descriptor "Italian", as has been used for five centuries. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Tarl N.: I get that. But you still haven't answered my question clearly. The RfC is only about leaving that one instance in the lede and no other, right? One (and only one) phrase of "Italian navigator" at the beginning, as a small kind gesture for bewildered schoolchildren, but can be "Genoese" everywhere else? Is that right? Walrasiad (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: I largely have no opinion on your question. In the body, where one can get arbitrarily technical, presumably the use of Genoese or Italian would depend on whether either had particular significance in context, and also what usage the cited references (at that point) were taking. Taking a quick glance at the article, I noticed the use of Genoese only in reference to language groups, and Italian only in reference to population groups (e.g., anti-Italian sentiment). Neither of those seem to need to be changed. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal since it is what is used by most sources, it is accurate (Genoese is Italian, even back then since the concept of Italy as a people already existed - s shown in previous discussion, contemporary sources called him Italian as well as citizen of Genoa), and given the connection between Columbus and Italian identity. Eccekevin (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• From the Republic of Genoa would be the most accurate and meaningful summary of his background. Genoa was an important and well-known maritime power in the western Mediterranean. He learned his trade sailing on Genoese ships, following Genoese trade routes. He made important contacts through the Genoese merchant communities in Spain and Portugal. Also, contrary to some previous assertions, most of his contemporaries referred to him as Genoese, not Italian.Glendoremus (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  The point was about the fact that his contemporaries referred to him as both Genoese and Italian. This was because some users claimed that at the time there was no notion of Italian identity and such term did not exist or was not used. Eccekevin (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

His contemporaries usually referred to him as Genoese, Italian was much less used. We generally have a policy not to use either ethnic or generic geographical descriptors in the lead, which is the only thing "Italian" could be here.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:ETHNICITY, Italy wasn't a country at that point in time.

Ortizesp (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support replacing with 'Genoese'. Genoa was a big maritime power that existed for more than half a millennium and we should not minimize its rich history. The adjective 'Genoese' is popularly used in literature, including for Columbus. Of course he is also often referred to as 'Italian' too, but the Wikipedia guideline MOS:ETHNICITY is quite clear on it that lead headers should start with citizenship/subjecthood (i.e. English definition of nationality) rather than the nation a person supposedly belonged to. Of course the guideline can be changed, but until then I'm opposed that we allow exceptions to seep in all the time because then ethnic pride will continue to have an influence on articles for historic people and there will be more anachronisms. 'Genoese' is technically more correct than 'Italian'. Sure, the average reader is less familiar with 'Genoese' compared 'Italian', but this is an encyclopedia, which is there to educate people. If things are tied, I think we should just leave nationality/ethnicity out of the lead (unless 'Genoese Italian' works?), i.e. 'Columbus was an explorer and navigator'. It can then be explained he was 'from Genoea on the Italian coast' (with hyperlink to Italian peninsula so that readers get very precise information. Machinarium (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Time for some pedantry. For those worried "Italian" was only an ethnicity, keep in mind:

* "Italy" certainly was a well-understood and defined geographic country at the time; this is not merely Pliny, it was used by contemporaries, e.g. Dante's famous outburst: "Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello, nave sanza nocchiere in gran tempesta, non donna di provincie, ma bordello!" (Dante, Purgatorio VI)

* "Italy" definitely existed as a state. At this time, the Republic of Genoa (unlike Venice) was technically not a sovereign country, but subordinate to the Kingdom of Italy ("Regnum Italiae"). a constituent kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire. The commune's self-government depended on a grant by imperial charter, and emperors (in their capacity as sovereign Kings of Italy) sometimes suspended that and imposed their own imperial vicars on Genoa (e.g. the Visconti at one time, the Sforza at another). So the modern "Kingdom of Italy" may not have existed, but a Medieval "Kingdom of Italy" certainly did. Walrasiad (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. In Columbus' lifetype there was no Italian King other than Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III who used such title ceremonially from 1452 to 1493. It is anyway difficult to find anything about Republic of Genoa being part of the larger empire. If the republic was still a part of it, it would have been quite meaningless, and wouldn't turn the Genoese into Romans/Italians (Just like Italians remained Italian after the European Union was formed). Machinarium (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Some more pedantry:

The Holy Roman Emperor is the King of Italy, and have been since Conrad the Salian seized the Italian throne in 1026. Medieval Emperors had to be acclaimed by their Italian vassals and separately crowned as "Kings of Italy" in Pavia, by the Archbishop of Milan, with the iron crown of the Lombards. Because it was a bit of a hassle to always get down to Pavia, the separate Italian coronation eventually got amalgamated into the general German ceremony during the 14th Century (so a single ceremony for the "King of the Romans" = joint coronation with the crowns of Germany + Italy + Burgundy). But the Kingdom of Italy continued to be politically and legally distinct in the imperial structures, with a different Chancellor for Italy (usually the Archbishop of Cologne ran the Italian chancery for the Emperor). Now, you may argue that may not mean much in practice, but technically, the "Kingdom of Italy" existed and was legally and geographically quite well-defined (the Kingdom of Italy's borders covered northern Italy down to the Papal States, excluding only Venice, over which it was never sovereign).

The Republic of Genoa was always a constituent fief of Kingdom of Italy and thus the Holy Roman Emperor was its sovereign. Just like Milan, Pavia, Modena, Cremona, Verona, Lucca, Pisa, etc. It had just long been allowed self-government by imperial charter. Genoa's first self-governing charter was granted by king Berengar II of Italy in 958, as a fiduciary lordship of the kingdom of Italy. Its Bishop reorganized it internally as a commune with councilar government in 1097 - that is, "republican" self-government - but this was quite common development in all the Italian fiefs during the 11-12th Century, during a period when the emperor was generally "too busy" up in Germany to attend to governing matters directly in Italy. That is, until emperor Frederick I Barbarossa decided to put his foot down, and directly appoint imperial governors to his Italian fiefs again. This was resisted and led to the debacle of the Battle of Legnano in 1176, which forced the emperor to withdraw his governors and recognize the communal governments of his Italian fiefs. Genoa, like all other fiefs of the Kingdom of Italy, still recognized the Emperor (the "King of Italy") as their sovereign overlord, but the emperor had to issue or confirm their self-governing charters. Not always respected - later emperors would assign "imperial vicariates" to favorite lords to supersede communal governments, and eventually most Italian communes folded under a strongman or great Signore, with or without imperial warrants. Genoa largely managed to escape that development, and its communal structures persisted longer than most. But regardless of its internal form of government, it was legally still a fief of the "Regnum Italiae", and recognized the HRE as its sovereign. Genoa was a member of the Lombard League during the Middle Ages. Genoa's flag was the "Guelf banner" (red cross on white), which all Italian Guelf communes used, as the reciprocal colors of the imperial war flag (the "Ghibelline banner" - white cross on red).

As to "independence", well, Genoa wasn't quite independent during most of Columbus lifetime. The French conquered Genoa in 1458. The Sforza dukes of Milan then ruled Genoa directly as imperial vicars from 1463 until the Fieschi revolt of 1477. Genoa submitted to Milan again in 1488, under the Sforza again, and remained under Milanese rule until 1499, when it passed under French rule again. The French would rule Genoa on-and-off until 1528. Given that Columbus left Genoa in 1476, that means Columbus would have spent most of his time there under French governors or the Dukes of Milan. Walrasiad (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Tbh I think it's a bit of an ad hoc argument to suddenly invoke the Holy Roman Empire. The political reality on the ground was that any Regnum Italae had already effectively ceased to exist centuries earlier in favour of Medieval communes, city-states, and dukedoms, with the title King of Italy mostly used ceremonially by the Holy Roman Emperor. Even if the Emperor had more presence in Genoa than is currently reflected on Wikipedia, it would make the inhabitants subjects of the HRE, not a polity called Italy. However, the city-states, dukedoms, and maritime republics of northern Italy were each powerful on their own, and fought many wars against each other without any Imperial army stopping them, which I believe should be reason enough to continue treating them not as provinces of the HRE but as largely de facto independent political entities, just like in the literature. In fact, Columbus lived during 40 years of remarkable peace that followed the signing of the Treaty of Lodi by the warring states of northern Italy, though by 1494 they were at war once again. Rule of the Milanese Sforza's over Genoa is something I'm less familiar with. In any case, a Genoese political entity was still there during Columbus' lifetime, with contemporaries describing him as Genoese and not Milanese. Machinarium (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not ceremonial, it is legal. The Kingdom of Italy has a separate chancery and seal, it is legally and politically distinct from the German circles. While, yes, in practice, these Italian states are de facto "independent" (or largely so), de jure they're not, they are and remain fiefs under HRE sovereignty down to 1806. Their charters, officials, the titles of the Italian lords, rest on grants and enfeoffments by the HR Emperor in his capacity as sovereign "King of Italy". Only Venice can style itself "Most Serene" (the style reserved for sovereigns). All others are formally dependent vassals, and subject to a higher authority.

Now, yes, admittedly, it is more theory than practice. But then Genoese independence during Columbus's lifetime was also more theory than practice, being ruled most of that time by either Paris or Milan. (it was not an alliance, it was subordination - French handed Genoa to Sforza for safe-keeping, and he was not light-handed; as a saying of the time went, a man cannot cough/fart in Genoa without the Duke's permission).

Personally, I have no problem with characterizing Columbus as Genoese, and do so 99% of the time. But characterizing him as "Italian" is not wrong either, and am willing to tolerate it in the lede. There's no good argument that necessarily excludes one or the other - both are technically right and both are practically wrong. Walrasiad (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I still think it doesn't change much because, to reiterate my previous point, the HRE at that point was a confederation which did not control its member-states' revenues or military resources, though at times it could coordinate joint projects, kind of like how the European Union today has not ended national citizenship of member states (I understand there's limits to making such anology but you get my point). I'm actually in agreement with you that Genoese and Italian are not necessarily contradictory, but I'm opposed with replacing 'Genoese' with Italian everywhere. Actually, is 'Genoese Italian' an alternative? Machinarium (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh good heavens, no, that's not the proposal (at least as I've understood it). It is just about including the mention of "Italian" once, in the lede. It would leave it "Genoese" everywhere else in the article. Walrasiad (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. That's also not quite according to the guidelines though, with WP:MOS instructing that the lead should summarize what's in the rest of the article.Machinarium (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change This has been discussed multiple times and has been stable for years. Whether its History.com or Encyclopedia Britannica or the [New York Times he is generally considered Italian. It's like with people born in Yugoslavia. Those people today would call themselves Serbians or Croations or Macedonians. You could call him Genoese-born but we aren't even sure where he was born, let alone when. Italian is probably the best term in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  Historians are confident he was born in the Republic of Genoa. The assertion that he was Italian is based on this fact. If you are unsure of where he was born, then why call him Italian? Glendoremus (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Not all historians are as confident as you say. But no matter. Most are confident he was born in Genoa or areas nearby Genoa. So Italian area sure, Genoa specific perhaps. But source-wise it's Italian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Change: WP:RS supports "Italian". MOS:bio supports "Genoese" but the bounds of MOS:bio appear to be under discussion on its own talk page. This is essentially choosing between "Italian from Genoa" and "Genoese from Italy", and the second is just likely to continue to have challenges from those who think Italy can only refer to the current country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A15730 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Bad RFC in current form: I think we should list a few different options and discuss those instead of having an RFC on just whether or not to remove the Italian label in the lede. There are multiple options here including something like "Genoese Italian", but the current RFC isn't formatted well to evaluate alternative options.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's indeed not really a poll that helps reach consensus (and there's WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). Machinarium (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change: Sorry for vacillating. I decided to go read up on this. WP:ETHNICITY’s policy is clear that citizenship is what must be stated in the lede. However, this case is exceptional: During Columbus’s lifetime, Genoa went from sovereign to subject to France, back to sovereign, to subject to Milan, to subject to France—at least from what I can glean. It was sovereign for only 10 years(?) total between 1451 and 1506. It was not even called the Republic of Genoa during parts of those times when it was not sovereign. Obviously we would never refer to Columbus as “French” — even though Genoa was subject to France for most of Columbus’s life — or “Milanese”. An yet, we can’t even claim he was from the “Republic of Genoa”, since that wasn’t its name for parts of the time in which Columbus was presumably present in his home region. Most of that time, regardless of what it was called, it was not a sovereign state. Presumably young Columbus and his peers thought of themselves as “Genoan”, which is fine: A lot of Americans consider themselves to be Texans first, for example, but that’s an identity rather than the citizenship required by WP:ETHNICITY. What about when Columbus became notable? Was he not by that time a subject of the Crown of Castile, at least once the Crown began awarding him titles? Doesn’t WP:ETHNICITY require that the relevant citizenship concerns the period in which the person became notable? And yet we would not say Columbus was Spanish — if for no other reason than that we don’t really know whether he was a Spanish subject. I conclude that WP:ETHNICITY’s policy can’t be applied here because no applicable label exists. That leads me back to my original opinion: “Italian navigator” with something useful about the other salient facts, such as “Italian navigator from the city-state of Genoa who rose to fame while sailing under the sponsorship of the Crown of Castile”. Strebe (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I respect your change of opinion, but now I'm thinking you're not getting certain facts right. From what I gather the Genoese state continued to exist during his lifetime but was under frequent occupation. It was not annexed by either France or Milan and he remained a Genoese citizen (!), as also confirmed by contemporary sources. As for living in Iberia, I read that unlike his family, he did not receive Portuguese or Castilian citizenship and that this later caused him a lot of trouble with the courts. I've actually seen Columbus been called 'Genoese-Castilian' once (which is also interesting because of historic maritime cultural ties between Genoa and Castille), so it's not entirely implausible. I can't really follow the Texas-analogy, because Texans are American citizens but Genoese were not Italian citizens. Anyway, if its all unclear, the policy instructs us to not start the lead with a disputed nationality, which is still in support of change. Machinarium (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Machinarium. My vote doesn’t depend on whether Columbus became a Castilian subject. It depends on the chaotic sovereignty status of Genoa during Columbus’s lifetime. I do not read WP:ETHNICITY to mean that we can choose some period in which the polity was independent and use that for a singular determination of nationalism. I also do not read the policy’s links to article on citizenship and nationality to mean that we can assign citizenship to a non-sovereign entity. The description of nationality specifically uses the term “subject”. The article on citizenship is more vague, so I am not sure how to assess its meaning in the absence of sovereignty. There is also a clause for “permanent resident” for historical figures, but Columbus would fail that test for Genoa(?). Assuming Columbus was a subject of Genoa when Genoa was independent, then he would have become a subject of France when France possessed the territory, and a subject of Milan when Milan possessed the territory. To literally follow the WP:ETHNICITY policy, we would have to say something absurd such as, “…a Genoan, French, and Milanese navigator…”. I think saying he was from the “Republic of Genoa” is wrong, since it was not called that for parts of Columbus’s lifetime (and possibly not during the time of his voyages of exploration, but I’m not sure). Anyway, given the mess, I prefer what I wrote in my last message as pithily conveying the most information to the most people most of the time. Strebe (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a misunderstanding of 'subject', which is added to the guideline in case people were stateless or lived in a time before there was citizenship for example. But in the time of Columbus, the Genoese state and Genoese citizenship were still there. When Genoa was under French dominion, ships flying under Genoese flags could be attacked by Aragonese pirates (who were at war with the French), and then when Genoa was under Milanese dominion they were attacked by French pirates instead (reportedly Columbus barely survived such an attack in 1476). While living as an expat in Iberia, Columbus remained Genoese not just in citizenship, but also stayed close with other Genoese migrants.Machinarium (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Pedantry again. Kingdoms have subjects. Republics have citizens. Genoa was certainly a republic throughout, even while under French & Milanese occupation. Columbus was a citizen of Genoa, not a subject of anybody else. Well, technically, republic of Genoa itself was a subject of the "Kingdom of Italy" (read: HRE), even during this time (French occupation didn't change its status; Milan occupied it under imperial vicariate). Walrasiad (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m not convinced by these arguments. I don’t know what a “republic” means if it is not sovereign. I also can’t tell how much autonomy Genoa really had (its de facto status) over the period in question (say, 1485 onward), but what I’ve read suggests that both the French and Milanese occupations were heavy-handed, at least at times. The “Kingdom of Italy” seems to have been more of a Holy Roman Empire fantasy and romanticized concept among Italians at that point than anything substantial, so I question whether it could even be called the de jure sovereign. De jure by whose reckoning, and under what authority? HRE wasn’t able to keep Italy under its heel in this period, and the city states were anything but united. I feel like you’re both making my argument for me: the matter of sovereignty is very muddled; the concept of citizenship/nationality is very muddled; therefore, WP:ETHNICITY can’t be applied as intended. “Italian” with clarifications seems best. Strebe (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Super-pedantry time:

"Republic" is a form of government, more specifically it refers to how magistrates are appointed. "Republic" simply means magistrates are chosen by the "people", or more precisely the community of citizens, rather than appointed by a lord. "Citizens" are narrowly defined as people with franchise to participate in the selection of magistrates - could be nobility only, could be anyone with property, could be everyone with a pulse, republics vary by who counts as "citizen" - there are aristocratic republics, democratic republics, etc. But the common feature of all republics is that the collective of "citizens" choose their own magistrates, they are not externally appointed or imposed by someone else, like a king, or a count, or a bishop. Kingdoms (like Britain) are not republics by definition because all judges and officers are appointed by the crown even if the crown is advised on their selection by a parliament, British judges are the king's judges, and act in the king's name, not the people's. There are no "citizens" of a kingdom, only "subjects" of the king, that is, the king imposes his magistrates on the people, and judgments are delivered in his name. In republics, the people select their own magistrates and judgments are delivered in the people's name.

"Sovereignty" means there is no appeal to higher justice. An entity is "sovereign" if a decision within that entity cannot be appealed to someone else higher. Colonial Virginia was not sovereign, because a Virginian could appeal to the king's court in England. The modern Commonwealth (read: Republic) of Virginia is not sovereign because a Virginian can appeal to the federal government in DC. The United States is sovereign because a Virginian cannot appeal a US Supreme Court judgment to any other court. It is final. There's no higher appeal. The buck ends there. That's all "sovereign" means.

Not all republics are sovereign. Genoa is a republic because judgments in Genoa were be done in Genoese courts, presided by communally-elected magistrates, and not by the king's magistrates, nor the count's magistrates, nor the bishop's magistrates. But a judgment in a Genoese court could be appealed upwards to the Holy Roman Emperor, the supreme judge, and his decision could overturn the judgment of Genoese magistrates. So the Republic of Genoa is not sovereign because you have a right of appeal above its magistrates. The Emperor is the final court of appeal to any Genoese, thus the HRE is "sovereign" over Genoa.

French military occupation didn't change that. Neither did the Duke of Milan's rule. They may suspend the institutional apparatus temporarily and run things by martial law, or they may kick people around to ensure they select only candidates they approve. But Genoa remained a republic, under the legal sovereignty of the HRE. No French king, no Milanese duke, no Spanish viceroy, ever ever dared suggest otherwise, nor even threatened it. That status never changed until Napoleon engineered the annexation of Genoa into the Ligurian Republic in 1797, removing it out of the HRE.

"Republic" was the most common form of organization in northern Italian towns in the Middle Ages - all communes elected their own magistrates - but all of them (except Venice) also recognized the sovereignty of the HRE. In Venice, was there no right of appeal to a higher judge than the republic's own magistrates. Venice was sovereign, thus styled a "Most Serene Republic" (like San Marino today). Walrasiad (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That seems more like clarity than “super-pedantry”. Going off and reading more, it also seems correct. Given that WP:ETHNICITY offers Nicolaus Copernicus as an example of omitting nationality in the lede by reason that it is disputed, should we not follow that practice here? My concerns with using “Republic of Genoa” are that (a) It was not uniformly called that over Columbus’s lifetime; (b) Do we know that Columbus was a “citizen” of Genoa (enfranchised) or even a resident during the period of his notability (as per WP:ETHNICITY)? My concerns with using “Italian” on its own are that people frequently mistake it for nationality. I think the “Kingdom of Italy” as a justification for nationality is a red herring: there was no “king” at all and no “kingdom” in any administrative sense during that period, from what I can tell. Strebe (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment, I propose that we scrap this RfC and reformulate it as a multiple choice offering "Italian", "Genoese" and "from the Republic of Genoa" as descriptors. It seems that a simple "include"/"exclude" is not particularly useful here. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection, other than the regrettable amount of effort already spent by many editors in the previous responses. My apologies for clumsiness in formulating the RFC/ Tarl N. (discuss) 21:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Boynamedsue. Reformulating this RFC with clearer options would be helpful. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that the RFC should be reformulated with clearer options. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This discussion in the end will be useless. On April 12 at the University of the Azores a doctoral thesis is being presented by Mr. Rosa - the top expert on this subject - that proves 100% that "Columbus" was neither Columbus, nor Genoese nor born in 1451.... much ado bout nothin here... the final hole in the boat of Columbus is about to sink his ship

https://uac.pt/sites/default/files/despacho_no_347-2022_-_22-09-2022.pdf Reynatour (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that will settle it for all the other experts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Some options I thought of with both included:

—Columbus was a Genoese Italian explorer and navigator who ...

—Columbus was an Italian (Genose) explorer and navigator who ...

—Columbus was an explorer and navigator from the Italian city-state of Genoa who ...

I dropped 'Republic of Genoa' because I read that Genoa only became known as a republic some years after Columbus died, but correct me if I'm wrong. Machinarium (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Genoese. Italy wasn't an entity back then. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose change - The lead as-is satisfactorily deals with this issue, mentioning both Italian as ethnicity and being from Genoa. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I wonder why he does not consider Spain as his nationality. He was born in the Republic of Genoa, which existed on the Italian Peninsula at the time, but later worked in Spain. In 2007, Spanish TV channel Antena 3 polled Spaniards and named them the 100 greatest Spaniards in Spanish history, ranking Columbus third. I think we should consider these consequences. In other words, it can be said that the country of origin is the Republic of Genoa, but it has since changed its nationality. I think we should list his final nationality. The ranking I mentioned can be found in the following document. "El Español de la Historia" Kloyan.L (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That would make him Castilian, not Spanish. Machinarium (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I cannot agree. The start of the Spanish Empire was in 1492 and Columbus died in Spain in 1507. Although he mainly operated during the time of the Crown of Castile, the formation of the Spanish Empire had been established, so can't his nationality be also indicated as Spanish? Kloyan.L (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal from Lead - The lead paragraph should include information in as broadly understandable terms as possible, the 10,000 foot view, so to speak. Italian is accurate enough for the layman who does not yet know what Genoa is, and the details are provided later. That said, I would not object to one of the alternatives proposed above by Machinarium: "Columbus was an explorer and navigator from the Italian city-state of Genoa who..." This conveys the broad, commonly understood information (Italian) as well as the more accurate zoomed-in information (city-state of Genoa). The key thing I would object to is removing any mention of Italian, as this is useful information to a modern reader. Fieari (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support - If we call the citizens of the Republic of Genoa at the time Italians on account of them being formally part of the kingom of Italy, we could equally call them Germans on the same rationale as they were simultaneously part of the Holy Roman Empire. Italians however can also refer to all inhabitants of the geographic entity at the time, including Normans and Venetians. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Technically Germany was separate from Italy, they just shared the same sovereign. Because I am still a pedant: the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire (as established by Conrad the Salian) specified the HRE consisted of 3 kingdoms + 1 imperial territory = Kingdom of Germany (incl. Bohemia), Kingdom of Italy (Lombard Italy), Kingdom of Burgundy (Arelate), and the Papal States (Roman Italy). Each was legally distinct, with their own chancellor, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal I did appreciate the comic relief to all this expostulation provided by the reference to Manuel da Silva Rosa's thesis. Oh yeah, sure, that will settle everything. Carlstak (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The Tide Starts to Turn against the Genoese Colombo

In his latest book, Professor João Paulo Oliveira e Costa, the Chair of Department of History in the University of Lisbon, wrote that it is now “clear the impossibility of Colón having been born into a family of Genoese weavers.” Portugal na História - Uma Identidade. Temas e Debates. (2022) p. 402 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.56.226 (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

District of Columbia &c.

I question whether these edits by User:Keystone18, removing the statement that the District of Columbia is named after Columbus, should stand. Columbia, as personification of the United States, is named for Columbus. Anything named for Columbia is therefore named after Columbus. “Columbia” hasn’t taken on a meaning or idea so distinct from its origins as to diminish its etymology’s importance, and, indeed, the term is hardly used anymore outside of longstanding toponyms. Strebe (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Flat incorrect to remove it. Although I might question restoring the "named for her" in one statement removed. Either way, historical documents are quite clear that the District of Columbia was named after Columbus, so the allegation underlying the removal is incorrect. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Columbus is a fictional figure

The "Italian" Columbus is a fictional figure, based on the biography on Christoforus Colon, written by his son, and sold, after the son's death, by relatives of Christoforus, to a Genoese writer, who "translated" it, or rather wrote a new fiction story, based on it, where he suddenly was called Columbus and Genoese. He never called himself Columbus, nor did he leve anything written in Italian. It says "Colon" on the house in La Laguna, Tenerife, where he stayed during the repair works on SANTA MARIA. Colon was the grand son of Johannes Sem Bonde, cousin of Karl Knutsson Bonde, who fought against the Scandinavian Union King Christian I and claimed the Swedish throne thrice. Every time things went bad for Karl Knutsson Bonde his cousin's family; Johannes Sem, his son Dominicus Bonde/Colon and his grand sons Christoffer and Bartolomeus Bonde, had to flee to Genua, where Dominicus' sons grew up long periods of their youth. The family armes in the lower right corner of the armes of honour, that Colon received from Queen Isabella when he returned from the Antilles, and that can be seen in museum in Madrid, is the armes of the family Bonde. 2.69.112.251 (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE Tarl N. (discuss) 22:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

An affair and illegitimate child are not details?

@Carlstak: Can you please defend this deletion? Strebe (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I typically have hundreds of tabs up (not all open) and apparently I got confused with the multiple tabs I had open for this article's revisions. I've restored your version. Carlstak (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for taking care of that. Strebe (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"Admiral of the Ocean Sea"

Disambiguation at the top of this article says this page redirects for "Admiral of the Ocean Sea", but it doesn't seem to do this. Since this is a hereditary title for the family linked to the title Duke of Veragua, that seems to be where it would disambiguate to, and I'd be happy to put it in - but I'm also not sure its a necessary disambiguation or honorific worth putting above his name, as there is only ever one of these alive at any one time. I'm not sure the rules around these sort of honorifics being put at the top of the infobox, but this one seems a bit both unique, obscure, and excessive to put right at the top of the article? Vbnnr (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It does redirect. The title is commonly stated when referring to Columbus: I certainly heard/read it a lot growing up. Strebe (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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[[3]] 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.

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)

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)

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.