Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

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

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

---

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion section

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

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

Latin equivalent of the term Italian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible OR information

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

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

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

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

• Last thing I know about information: "Though the modern state of Italy had yet to be established, the Latin equivalent of the term Italian had been in use for natives of the region since antiquity" is that it is based on the letter of Pliny the Elder((AD 23/24 – AD 79), Letters 9.23. [23] L To Maximus. [[1]] "He said that he was sitting by the side of a certain individual at the last Circensian games, and that, after they had had a long and learned talk on a variety of subjects, his acquaintance said to him: "Are you from Italy or the provinces?" Tacitus replied : "You know me quite well, and that from the books of mine you have read." "Then," said the man, "you are either Tacitus or Pliny."

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

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

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

WP:NOTSOURCE is not relevant: I didn’t propose the Wikipedia article section as a reference for the Wikipedia article. I offered it as a way for you to begin educating yourself as to why other editors have no interest in engaging you on this topic. In short, it’s because there is no scholarly debate about “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”. It’s simply an obvious fact that you can infer by learning Italian history. Strebe (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

This information is not a fact because such information does not exist in secondary sources. If it were a fact then in this and other articles it wouldn't be based on WP:PRIMARY Pliny the Elder and based on that source is OR. It is also not a fact in context of Columbus because it does not exist in any secondary source that talks about him. This is clearly visible on the talk page of Dante Alighieri where this information is labeled as OR and also on WP:NORN. Wanting to justify your own support of this information, you refer to some kind of historical fact. Although it was clearly presented to you on the RFC that this information is possible or OR and that it was not cited. At no time did you try to verify this information to see if it same OR or not or that you tried to find citation. Therefore, it is not editing according to the rules. "The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Content must be written from a neutral point of view (It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research".), Include citations " Mikola22 (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Your access to information is not what determines “fact”. Consider learning something instead of focusing on enforcing your interpretation of Wikipedia rules. The fact that Italians had an identity and name as Italians in Roman times is so well known among scholars that they don’t normally bother commenting on it directly. I have seen this phenomenon in many fields: What is common knowledge among scholars doesn’t get stated explicitly. See, for example, https://journals.openedition.org/mefra/12224:

It has been argued that the experiences of the Italians in the Mediterranean played an important role in the creation of an ‘Italian’ identity: through their shared experiences, Italians as a whole came to identify themselves with each other and with the geographical unit called Italia, in addition to their continuing ties to their home towns and/or peoples. Important insights into the Italian view of their identity can be gathered from Greek inscriptions regarding Italians, mostly from Delos. Two expressions often appear in these texts, Rhomaioi and Italikoi, in Latin Italici. The use of these terms is revealing with regard to the identity expressed by those who set up these inscriptions. I have discussed the meaning of these terms elsewhere, but the fact that it was possible for Italians to use the term Italikos shows that they saw Italy as a united whole. It is clear, then, that the term Italia indicated a united geographical whole from the third century onwards; the term Italikos/Italicus included both Roman citizens and Italians without citizenship. The Italians abroad thus acted as a group, in a way they had not previously done in Italy itself. The Italians’ overseas activities ensured that throughout the Mediterranean, Italians enjoyed a reputation as successful businessmen. These experiences overseas significantly affected the way in which the Italians perceived themselves. They were continuously addressed as a coherent group by Greeks, and used one blanket term to indicate themselves. This indicates that for Greeks and others from outside of Italy, it was difficult to see the difference between those with Roman citizenship and those without. For example, when Mithridates carried out his attack on the Italians and Romans in the East, he did not distinguish between Italians and Romans.79 And why should he, since Italians had gained great wealth from their association with Rome? Remarkably quickly the Italians had developed from conquered and exploited by the Romans to assistants in conquering and exploiting the rest of the Mediterranean.

Does this source directly state “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”? No. But the material in Antiquité journal article would be nonsensical otherwise. There is no end to scholarly material that discusses Italians (Italicus, pl. Italici) in Roman times. Strebe (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We can let this thread die a merciful death; the OP has been blocked from this page. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Glory hallelujah. Carlstak (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of "brutality" are outdated.

Read Carol Delaney's book. Columbus never owned slaves himself. He ordered those under his command to treat the indigenous people with kindness, going so far as to execute men under his command who disobeyed his orders. 151.200.20.36 (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change you'd like to make to the article and a source to support it? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)