Talk:Discovery doctrine

Conflict between Wiki articles

According to its introductory paragraph, this topic has to do with a U.S. Supreme Court case.

However, another article describes the Discovery Doctrine topic thusly,

=

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

Catholic Church and doctrine of discovery See also: Catholic Church and the Age of Discovery

The doctrine of discovery is a legal and religious concept, tied to the Roman Catholic Church, which rationalized and "legalized" colonization and the conquering of Indigenous peoples in the eyes of Christianized Europeans.

===

Someone more qualified than I must straighten out this confusing conflict within wikipedia. LarryWiki115 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem lies with this article. Past editors have approached the topic with a USA centered mindset and used US-specific sources as if they reflect the doctrine. Someone should rearrange this article, which is not a simple task. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem lies with the Indigenous article. "The Discovery Doctrine" is an interpretation of international law regarding the acquisition of territory which was first articulated by the US Supreme Court, as the sources cited in this article state. This interpretation of International law is contested by other scholars and jurists. I will try to edit the other article so that it reflect a borader range of reliable sources and is better harmonised with this one. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the term "discovery doctrine" was first used in relation to this USA court decision, and this article is about that case? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the term "discovery doctrine" was first used in relation to this USA court decision, and that the article is about the history of the term and scholarly analysis of whether "discovery" was ever a tenet of international law. It is also about the subsequent history of the doctrine in law and protests by Indigenous rights groups against what they see as the adverse consequences of the adoption of the legal doctrine in the USA and other settler societies. I have quickly read the Indigenous article and my comments are:

1) The section on Discovery Doctrine is too long, based entirely on one source, and present the view of that source as "the truth" about the discovery doctrine whereas the reality is more complex.

2) The structure of the article is bizarre. It is supposed to be about Indigenous peoples but is mostly about European colonisation of Indigenous peoples. There is alsready an article about colonisation so most of the stuff about colonisation in the Indigenous article should be summarised.

As I said, I will try to summarise and rework the section about Discovery Doctrine in that article, based on a wider range of reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If this article is about the US case and the court's definition of the 'discovery doctrine', which it appears to be, then shouldn't the title be disambiguated? The doctrine pre-dates the US case by centuries, as this article confirms, as well as this [1] source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not only about the US Supreme Court case, as I made clear in my last reponse. It is about the discovery doctrine in toto, as the article makes clear. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait for your changes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Summary of why the Vatican is in the lead

The current mention of the Vatican in the lead has no explanation for why it his there, and seems unrelated to practically anything else in the lead. I added the explanation from the source and as summary of the article (which goes into it extensively) but the matter was reverted and the reason for the revert makes little sense, especially a complete revert instead of editing in. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. The problem is that the Vatican rejected the doctrine totally, not "to the extent that it may be traced back to Chuch doctrine". Perhaps we should add the following: "Marshall and several contemporary scholars trace the doctrine of discovery back to papal bulls which authorized various European powers to conquer the lands of non-Christians. In recent decades, advocates for Indigenous rights have campaigned against the doctrine and many called for the Catholic Church to renounce it." What do you think? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems like a bit much for the lead but would improve the appropriate section of the article. A summary could then be edited into the lead. I agree the current single sentence seems bare without context. Regards, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 00:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think The best way in summary is to link age of discovery from the first sentence, to papal bulls, to disavowal. This leaves out the link of Terra Nulis in International Law to papal bulls but that can be covered in the body. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer my proposal. It only adds 1.5 sentences, summarises the relevant part of the article, and gives the context of the Vatican statement. A shorter alternative would be to simply say: "following requests from activists, the Vatican formally repudiated the doctrine stating that it was a distortion of Catholic teaching." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)